4 ms·

> "I spent stupid money throwing shit at a non-stick wall, realized the wall was non-stick, so started spending money throwing shit at a different non-stick wal

by anjc 7y ago

> "I spent stupid money throwing shit at a non-stick wall, realized the wall was non-stick, so started spending money throwing shit at a different non-stick wall instead". This is the worst possible interpretation of OP's venture, and must be written by a 12 year old if $1900 is "stupid money" Edit: I'm not saying that $1900 is not a significant amount of money to many people in the world. But it is NOT a lot of money in the context of developing/marketing a tech product in the first world.

sokoloff 7y ago
For the benefit of others, the totality of that comment is much richer and more thoughtful than the snarky snippet you quoted.
- anjc 7y ago
  I didn't add the "snark" to that snippet, and no, the rest is no better. > If OP had done any research, he would have realised "Russian Reddit clone" was not a good idea with a real likelihood of success. Way too ambitious. > If OP had planned, he wouldn't have stumbled around aimlessly for 10 weeks and would have understood success, especially when growing any type of "community" based project, takes time. I've now pasted 60% of the comment, and none of it is useful or actionable and is all rather insulting..."stumbled around aimlessly", "not a good idea", "throwing shit at a wall", these are trash statements and no budding entrepreneur should listen to them. I'll also add that OPs approach is a typical "move fast and break things" method of finding a product-market fit, and it seems to me that OP did stumble upon a product and a market in a discussion platform for cancer patients. They need a monetisation strategy, but for somebody to turn around and say this is "shit" and was "aimless" is useless and shouldn't be encouraged.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    The point of having a plan and realistic estimate (or even considered guess) of how long it might take for a community to take off is that it might preclude 2 pivots after less than a month each, especially if nascent traction emerged in one of them but no lightning bolt of monetization spontaneously emerged. How long might it take for a self-sustaining community to emerge? Surely longer than 6 weeks unless you pour a massive amount of money into ads or other pump-primers. To be honest, the approach did resonate as fairly “aimless” to me. You may have a different opinion and that’s also ok. Edit to add: “throwing shit against a wall and seeing what sticks” is an idiom of sorts. It does not mean that the literal thing being tried is being called “shit”.
tluyben2 7y ago
> must be written by a 12 year old if $1900 is "stupid money" Well, many people cannot get their hands on $2k readily to just burn away. I mean there are many articles like [0] and that is only the US, this is ofcourse far far worse in poorer countries so for a lot (majority?) of people in this world $2k is in fact "stupid money". And these people are not 12. [0] https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/pf/lack-of-savings-cover-unexpected-expense/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/pf/lack-of-savings-cover-un...
- losvedir 7y ago
  I don't think that's really relevant to the question of "how much" $1900 is, really. I'd say most people "choose not to" save $1k than "cannot". I saved up a reasonable amount of money on $14/hr in Boston after graduation by living with roommates, not having a car, living frugally, etc. And conversely, I know plenty of people (developers even, who make lots of money!) who don't have that much saved.
  - tluyben2 7y ago
    Well, if you google the 'issue' about people being able to get $1000 if they really need it is pretty dismal reading. When you check reddit groups about finance as well; savings or not, most people cannot get $1000 today if they really needed to. People who make lots of money theoretically (developers etc) in western countries can get to $1000 any time even without savings. Other jobs, not so much. Also in non western countries (where developer wages average $500/mo for instance) this is very different. I work with a Russian devs daily and they simply don't make so much, especially in certain parts of Russia. With kids and mortgage having the luxury to pull 2k$ out while not working for money is a big issue for many people. I agree with you having savings or not might not be relevant of how much $1900 is, but that article was only one example and to me it seems relevant because if you don't have it in savings, how would you risk quitting your job? The tone of the reddit post shows that this person considers this actually to be a lot of money and from what I see I would say most people on earth would consider it a lot of money. The fact that you or I don't consider it to be a lot is kind of the echo chamber of HN we are in.
coldtea 7y ago
Or you know, someone who doesn't share your living standards. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." $1900 is "stupid money" (as in hella expensive) for 1/3rd of the world's population. For some, it's more than they make in a year -- and yes, those places still have digital entrepreneurs. And even in more economically advanced countries, $1900 can still be a lot for many demographics, even in the US, for e.g. a student or someone barely making the rent.
- anjc 7y ago
  This all goes without saying. However we're talking about developing and marketing a product in the first world. In this context, $1900 is not only nothing, it's a bargain given the experience OP gained.
  - CrazyStat 7y ago
    OP is in Russia, from the sound of it. $1900 is a good amount of money there--the average annual salary is about $8500.
agota 7y ago
I'd like to point out that OP is from Russia. I wonder if he still lives in Russia? In 2018, the minimum wage in Russia was 11163 rubles per month, which is $174.6 per month. So, it would take a person working for a minimum wage 10.8 months to earn $1900. For comparison, the minimum wage in California is $11/hour, so assuming a 40 hour work week, in 10.8 months a minimum wage worker in California would make $19,008. I'd guess that you would consider $19k to be a significant amount of money to spend on a project like this? My point is, while you are right that $1900 is not "stupid money", it might still be a significant amount of money if the OP lives in Russia. In fact, I'd think that a lot of people living in the United States would think that $1900 is a significant amount of money, especially for a risky side project.
- adventured 7y ago
  You correctly point out the non-trivial nature of $1,900, including for many millions of Americans, based on duration just to earn the $1,900 in terms of income. It's even more dramatic than that however. The person earning minimum wage in Russia will never possess $1,900 in loose capital to spend on such a venture, as they don't have enough buffer beyond expenses to accumulate it. At $174 per month, saving 20% of that, it would take five years, and during those five years something would inevitably happen to consume the savings base (stray emergency need or other life event). It's one aspect of the brutality of being poor, whether in Russia or the US or wherever. You rarely have breathing room above basic life expenses to accumulate anything. Opportunity almost always has a financial cost associated with it, a get-through-the-door dollar cost (whether that's buying equipment, renting commercial space, or just affording the free time to do a thing). For the majority of the world $1,900 is more savings in terms of liquid cash (eg in a bank account), than they will ever have at a given point during their lifetimes. It's exceptionally hard for the majority of people to put that together.
  - Kaiyou 7y ago
    Which isn't saying much. For the majority of the people in the world $100 would tick the same box.
zaat 7y ago
Perhaps off-topic / nitpicking, but is Russia considered first world? By the original definition Russia is _the_ second world, and I'm not sure that it is a first world now.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by anjc 7y ago

sokoloff 7y ago

For the benefit of others, the totality of that comment is much richer and more thoughtful than the snarky snippet you quoted.

anjc 7y ago
I didn't add the "snark" to that snippet, and no, the rest is no better. > If OP had done any research, he would have realised "Russian Reddit clone" was not a good idea with a real likelihood of success. Way too ambitious. > If OP had planned, he wouldn't have stumbled around aimlessly for 10 weeks and would have understood success, especially when growing any type of "community" based project, takes time. I've now pasted 60% of the comment, and none of it is useful or actionable and is all rather insulting..."stumbled around aimlessly", "not a good idea", "throwing shit at a wall", these are trash statements and no budding entrepreneur should listen to them. I'll also add that OPs approach is a typical "move fast and break things" method of finding a product-market fit, and it seems to me that OP did stumble upon a product and a market in a discussion platform for cancer patients. They need a monetisation strategy, but for somebody to turn around and say this is "shit" and was "aimless" is useless and shouldn't be encouraged.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  The point of having a plan and realistic estimate (or even considered guess) of how long it might take for a community to take off is that it might preclude 2 pivots after less than a month each, especially if nascent traction emerged in one of them but no lightning bolt of monetization spontaneously emerged. How long might it take for a self-sustaining community to emerge? Surely longer than 6 weeks unless you pour a massive amount of money into ads or other pump-primers. To be honest, the approach did resonate as fairly “aimless” to me. You may have a different opinion and that’s also ok. Edit to add: “throwing shit against a wall and seeing what sticks” is an idiom of sorts. It does not mean that the literal thing being tried is being called “shit”.

tluyben2 7y ago

> must be written by a 12 year old if $1900 is "stupid money" Well, many people cannot get their hands on $2k readily to just burn away. I mean there are many articles like [0] and that is only the US, this is ofcourse far far worse in poorer countries so for a lot (majority?) of people in this world $2k is in fact "stupid money". And these people are not 12. [0] https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/pf/lack-of-savings-cover-unexpected-expense/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/pf/lack-of-savings-cover-un...

losvedir 7y ago
I don't think that's really relevant to the question of "how much" $1900 is, really. I'd say most people "choose not to" save $1k than "cannot". I saved up a reasonable amount of money on $14/hr in Boston after graduation by living with roommates, not having a car, living frugally, etc. And conversely, I know plenty of people (developers even, who make lots of money!) who don't have that much saved.
- tluyben2 7y ago
  Well, if you google the 'issue' about people being able to get $1000 if they really need it is pretty dismal reading. When you check reddit groups about finance as well; savings or not, most people cannot get $1000 today if they really needed to. People who make lots of money theoretically (developers etc) in western countries can get to $1000 any time even without savings. Other jobs, not so much. Also in non western countries (where developer wages average $500/mo for instance) this is very different. I work with a Russian devs daily and they simply don't make so much, especially in certain parts of Russia. With kids and mortgage having the luxury to pull 2k$ out while not working for money is a big issue for many people. I agree with you having savings or not might not be relevant of how much $1900 is, but that article was only one example and to me it seems relevant because if you don't have it in savings, how would you risk quitting your job? The tone of the reddit post shows that this person considers this actually to be a lot of money and from what I see I would say most people on earth would consider it a lot of money. The fact that you or I don't consider it to be a lot is kind of the echo chamber of HN we are in.

coldtea 7y ago

Or you know, someone who doesn't share your living standards. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." $1900 is "stupid money" (as in hella expensive) for 1/3rd of the world's population. For some, it's more than they make in a year -- and yes, those places still have digital entrepreneurs. And even in more economically advanced countries, $1900 can still be a lot for many demographics, even in the US, for e.g. a student or someone barely making the rent.

anjc 7y ago
This all goes without saying. However we're talking about developing and marketing a product in the first world. In this context, $1900 is not only nothing, it's a bargain given the experience OP gained.
- CrazyStat 7y ago
  OP is in Russia, from the sound of it. $1900 is a good amount of money there--the average annual salary is about $8500.

agota 7y ago

I'd like to point out that OP is from Russia. I wonder if he still lives in Russia? In 2018, the minimum wage in Russia was 11163 rubles per month, which is $174.6 per month. So, it would take a person working for a minimum wage 10.8 months to earn $1900. For comparison, the minimum wage in California is $11/hour, so assuming a 40 hour work week, in 10.8 months a minimum wage worker in California would make $19,008. I'd guess that you would consider $19k to be a significant amount of money to spend on a project like this? My point is, while you are right that $1900 is not "stupid money", it might still be a significant amount of money if the OP lives in Russia. In fact, I'd think that a lot of people living in the United States would think that $1900 is a significant amount of money, especially for a risky side project.

adventured 7y ago
You correctly point out the non-trivial nature of $1,900, including for many millions of Americans, based on duration just to earn the $1,900 in terms of income. It's even more dramatic than that however. The person earning minimum wage in Russia will never possess $1,900 in loose capital to spend on such a venture, as they don't have enough buffer beyond expenses to accumulate it. At $174 per month, saving 20% of that, it would take five years, and during those five years something would inevitably happen to consume the savings base (stray emergency need or other life event). It's one aspect of the brutality of being poor, whether in Russia or the US or wherever. You rarely have breathing room above basic life expenses to accumulate anything. Opportunity almost always has a financial cost associated with it, a get-through-the-door dollar cost (whether that's buying equipment, renting commercial space, or just affording the free time to do a thing). For the majority of the world $1,900 is more savings in terms of liquid cash (eg in a bank account), than they will ever have at a given point during their lifetimes. It's exceptionally hard for the majority of people to put that together.
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  Which isn't saying much. For the majority of the people in the world $100 would tick the same box.

zaat 7y ago

Perhaps off-topic / nitpicking, but is Russia considered first world? By the original definition Russia is _the_ second world, and I'm not sure that it is a first world now.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]