5 ms·

The next guy who upvotes anything starting with "Paul Graham was right" is going to get his legs broken. Ok, not really (just saw the Sopranos on dvd last nigh

The next guy who upvotes anything starting with "Paul Graham was right" is going to get his legs broken. Ok, not really (just saw the Sopranos on dvd last night), but let's not turn this into a dumb fan boy site. There are tons of those already.

juwo 19y ago
I disagree with Paul Graham - but no one commented on these arguments(http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=19535) http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=19535) http://juwo-works.blogspot.com/2007/05/ideas-are-worthless-wrong-ideas-can.html http://juwo-works.blogspot.com/2007/05/ideas-are-worthless-wrong-ideas-can.html
- jkush 19y ago
  That's because you're playing with semantics. Ideas are worthless because an idea can't solve a problem. It's the implementation of an idea that solves the problem.
  - juwo 19y ago
    Well, think back to the idea Einstein had when he was a 14 year old kid. "if I can ride a motorcycle as fast as a beam of light..." was it worthless?
    - SwellJoe 19y ago
      Yes, it was, until he executed on it as an adult and formalized it and made it into something useful. Had the idea stayed an idea, or just been handed off to someone else who hadn't the mental capacity to do something with it, it would have remained worthless. In short, Paul was right. Ideas are worthless. Ideas plus execution can have value. Why fight it? Got some great ideas but no capacity to execute? Just accept it and start executing.
      - juwo 19y ago
        from my blog post: "An idea is a seed; many ideas have to be discovered and implemented along the way for it to grow up. The initial fertilisation is essential, but differentiation into organs, the "other ideas along the way" must come along." this was the seed. even after differentiation into organs - as the Theory of Relativity, it was still an idea on paper. You cannot reasonably argue that it was worthless. Other people executed it.
        jkush 19y ago
        Look Juwo, you're still playing with words. It's not so much that an idea is WORTHLESS (where it doesn't have any value) as it's that an idea doesn't really count for anything UNTIL it's been brought out into the real world. For all intents and purposes, Einstein's ideas were worthless until he put them down on paper. Let me phrase this another way: what if Einstein had never written The Theory of Relativity? Would his ideas still be worth anything just sitting there in his brain? Also, PG never wrote that ideas were "worthless". He wrote that people "overvalue ideas". This is what I mean when I say you're playing with words. Changing "overvalue ideas" to worthless frames it very differently and isn't very precise.
        juwo 19y ago
        I am not bothered to look for his article but I am sure he used the term "ideas are worthless". Otherwise that phrase would never have independently stuck around here so long.
        jkush 19y ago
        See here: http://paulgraham.com/ideas.html http://paulgraham.com/ideas.html He did write "The fact that there's no market for startup ideas suggests there's no demand. Which means, in the narrow sense of the word, that startup ideas are worthless." What I mean when I say playing with words is that he qualified that statement with "in the narrow sense of the word." He was also referring to startup ideas in particular. This discussion is getting to be a little ridiculous because you're splitting hairs and and missing the point entirely.
- akkartik 19y ago
  Here is a simple way to provide evidence of the hypothesis that ideas have value: make money off them without performing execution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage

juwo 19y ago

I disagree with Paul Graham - but no one commented on these arguments(http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=19535) http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=19535) http://juwo-works.blogspot.com/2007/05/ideas-are-worthless-wrong-ideas-can.html http://juwo-works.blogspot.com/2007/05/ideas-are-worthless-wrong-ideas-can.html

jkush 19y ago
That's because you're playing with semantics. Ideas are worthless because an idea can't solve a problem. It's the implementation of an idea that solves the problem.
- juwo 19y ago
  Well, think back to the idea Einstein had when he was a 14 year old kid. "if I can ride a motorcycle as fast as a beam of light..." was it worthless?
  - SwellJoe 19y ago
    Yes, it was, until he executed on it as an adult and formalized it and made it into something useful. Had the idea stayed an idea, or just been handed off to someone else who hadn't the mental capacity to do something with it, it would have remained worthless. In short, Paul was right. Ideas are worthless. Ideas plus execution can have value. Why fight it? Got some great ideas but no capacity to execute? Just accept it and start executing.
    - juwo 19y ago
      from my blog post: "An idea is a seed; many ideas have to be discovered and implemented along the way for it to grow up. The initial fertilisation is essential, but differentiation into organs, the "other ideas along the way" must come along." this was the seed. even after differentiation into organs - as the Theory of Relativity, it was still an idea on paper. You cannot reasonably argue that it was worthless. Other people executed it.
      - jkush 19y ago
        Look Juwo, you're still playing with words. It's not so much that an idea is WORTHLESS (where it doesn't have any value) as it's that an idea doesn't really count for anything UNTIL it's been brought out into the real world. For all intents and purposes, Einstein's ideas were worthless until he put them down on paper. Let me phrase this another way: what if Einstein had never written The Theory of Relativity? Would his ideas still be worth anything just sitting there in his brain? Also, PG never wrote that ideas were "worthless". He wrote that people "overvalue ideas". This is what I mean when I say you're playing with words. Changing "overvalue ideas" to worthless frames it very differently and isn't very precise.
        juwo 19y ago
        I am not bothered to look for his article but I am sure he used the term "ideas are worthless". Otherwise that phrase would never have independently stuck around here so long.
        jkush 19y ago
        See here: http://paulgraham.com/ideas.html http://paulgraham.com/ideas.html He did write "The fact that there's no market for startup ideas suggests there's no demand. Which means, in the narrow sense of the word, that startup ideas are worthless." What I mean when I say playing with words is that he qualified that statement with "in the narrow sense of the word." He was also referring to startup ideas in particular. This discussion is getting to be a little ridiculous because you're splitting hairs and and missing the point entirely.
akkartik 19y ago
Here is a simple way to provide evidence of the hypothesis that ideas have value: make money off them without performing execution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage