3 ms·

Then there's what's often called "privilege" (circumstances of birth). What are the consequences to you of taking a risk on being lucky and missing? For some p

Then there's what's often called "privilege" (circumstances of birth). What are the consequences to you of taking a risk on being lucky and missing? For some people, dropping out of college and spending a few years working on a project that might pay out spectacularly is negligible. Sure, it's a few years of lifespan, but you learned some stuff and your future trajectory isn't going to be dragged down by a failure in your early 20s. For others, one shot is all they'll ever get. If they don't get the degree and the right job out of college, the trajectory of their life will be permanently inflected downward. Circumstances of birth have a huge impact on what chances are rational to take.

npsimons 7y ago
> For some people, dropping out of college and spending a few years working on a project that might pay out spectacularly is negligible. Sure, it's a few years of lifespan, but you learned some stuff and your future trajectory isn't going to be dragged down by a failure in your early 20s. Precisely. People love to trot out Bill Gates as some business genius, but he got lucky, a lot, first by being born to wealth, then by getting the contract with IBM. Later , Microsoft got by with underhanded and shady business tactics (FUD) while clearly shipping far inferior product.
- swagtricker 7y ago
  Absolutely. So much so, while they dodged getting broken up, the settle the anti-trust suit with the DOJ and regarding their predatory defense of their monopoly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
- bluGill 7y ago
  Bill Gates wrote (mostly himself) the number one BASIC implementation, something important enough that IBM thought they had to have it - this was not luck in the same way DOS was luck. Even if the first PC shipped with CP/M as the OS instead of DOS, Gates would still have been there. Microsoft wouldn't have Windows today, but I think it is safe to say they would still have Office. Luck is involved in getting to the top. However there is a lot of hard work required to take advantage of it. The unsuccessful often have better luck when you look close - but they don't use their luck.
  - loopz 7y ago
    Gates wrote BASIC, in an age where people scrambled to solder their own boards and connect circuitboards. Later Microsoft offered Visual Basic, including ability to design your own forms and tie-in with code and data sources. In hindsight, we know what really worked was Windows and Office. It is a kind of luck to be so ahead of the curve, you can sort of coast, although it's a lot of hard work, somehow the right people falls in your lap as well as predatory opportunities (clone, buy and steal your competition). While hobbyists and IBM scrambled, someone invested into the budding IBM PC-clone platform. This is business acumen fueled by superior technological vision and clarity (though at the same time blind). Jobs had his own niche, catering more for end-UX and designers also ruthlessly, ironically.
mc32 7y ago
Conversely I know people who got stoned and mooched a lot to get by and were “happy” with sporadic entry level jobs. They could have done _something_ with all that spare time but they rather vegged out and whiled away their time.
- wang_li 7y ago
  These threads are always so binary in their world view. Everything is either striking it lucky and being a multimillionaire by the time a person is twenty-five or they missed out on luck and they're permanently homeless and drug addicted. Like work ethic has nothing to do with it. They completely ignore that fact that there is a set of life choices that limits the downside, slowly builds the upside, and allows a person to create opportunities.
- robocat 7y ago
  A high reward for low risk is a good strategy, especially if you know you lack some essential skill like epic motivation. Most startups fail: they are NOT a sensible financial investment as an individual. Your poker stack is your time and the opportunity cost of a normal job. Your reward is too variable to be a sensible risk to take. A common statistic is one success per 10 VC investment. But a VC turns down 100 startups for every one they fund, so your individual chances of success are much lower than that. If a person only does startups then they have a very significant chance of getting $0 in return. The kelly criterion[1] for 100x return (say 100MM after 10 years work == 5th of working life and opportunity cost of $1MM wages) and 1 in 20 chance of success (a large overestimate) says you should invest 1/25th of your pot. For that to be sensible as an individual you could: A. hugely reduce time invested (hard if you want outsized returns), B. lower risk i.e. don’t take all-or-nothing VC money, C. pool your risk with other startups (now you are a VC - hard) D. already have millions (so 1/25th is big enough) E. live forever (infinite dice rolls). F. value the social outcomes of being a founder very highly (I think this is common) G. Have some inside knowledge that changes the risks (large risk you are kidding yourself - reality shows that). I seriously think being a founder is not a sensible financial decision, and I think it is very smart not to be a founder. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

npsimons 7y ago

> For some people, dropping out of college and spending a few years working on a project that might pay out spectacularly is negligible. Sure, it's a few years of lifespan, but you learned some stuff and your future trajectory isn't going to be dragged down by a failure in your early 20s. Precisely. People love to trot out Bill Gates as some business genius, but he got lucky, a lot, first by being born to wealth, then by getting the contract with IBM. Later , Microsoft got by with underhanded and shady business tactics (FUD) while clearly shipping far inferior product.

swagtricker 7y ago
Absolutely. So much so, while they dodged getting broken up, the settle the anti-trust suit with the DOJ and regarding their predatory defense of their monopoly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
bluGill 7y ago
Bill Gates wrote (mostly himself) the number one BASIC implementation, something important enough that IBM thought they had to have it - this was not luck in the same way DOS was luck. Even if the first PC shipped with CP/M as the OS instead of DOS, Gates would still have been there. Microsoft wouldn't have Windows today, but I think it is safe to say they would still have Office. Luck is involved in getting to the top. However there is a lot of hard work required to take advantage of it. The unsuccessful often have better luck when you look close - but they don't use their luck.
- loopz 7y ago
  Gates wrote BASIC, in an age where people scrambled to solder their own boards and connect circuitboards. Later Microsoft offered Visual Basic, including ability to design your own forms and tie-in with code and data sources. In hindsight, we know what really worked was Windows and Office. It is a kind of luck to be so ahead of the curve, you can sort of coast, although it's a lot of hard work, somehow the right people falls in your lap as well as predatory opportunities (clone, buy and steal your competition). While hobbyists and IBM scrambled, someone invested into the budding IBM PC-clone platform. This is business acumen fueled by superior technological vision and clarity (though at the same time blind). Jobs had his own niche, catering more for end-UX and designers also ruthlessly, ironically.

mc32 7y ago

Conversely I know people who got stoned and mooched a lot to get by and were “happy” with sporadic entry level jobs. They could have done _something_ with all that spare time but they rather vegged out and whiled away their time.

wang_li 7y ago
These threads are always so binary in their world view. Everything is either striking it lucky and being a multimillionaire by the time a person is twenty-five or they missed out on luck and they're permanently homeless and drug addicted. Like work ethic has nothing to do with it. They completely ignore that fact that there is a set of life choices that limits the downside, slowly builds the upside, and allows a person to create opportunities.
robocat 7y ago
A high reward for low risk is a good strategy, especially if you know you lack some essential skill like epic motivation. Most startups fail: they are NOT a sensible financial investment as an individual. Your poker stack is your time and the opportunity cost of a normal job. Your reward is too variable to be a sensible risk to take. A common statistic is one success per 10 VC investment. But a VC turns down 100 startups for every one they fund, so your individual chances of success are much lower than that. If a person only does startups then they have a very significant chance of getting $0 in return. The kelly criterion[1] for 100x return (say 100MM after 10 years work == 5th of working life and opportunity cost of $1MM wages) and 1 in 20 chance of success (a large overestimate) says you should invest 1/25th of your pot. For that to be sensible as an individual you could: A. hugely reduce time invested (hard if you want outsized returns), B. lower risk i.e. don’t take all-or-nothing VC money, C. pool your risk with other startups (now you are a VC - hard) D. already have millions (so 1/25th is big enough) E. live forever (infinite dice rolls). F. value the social outcomes of being a founder very highly (I think this is common) G. Have some inside knowledge that changes the risks (large risk you are kidding yourself - reality shows that). I seriously think being a founder is not a sensible financial decision, and I think it is very smart not to be a founder. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion