3 ms·

Apparently, some of the worst things that can be said about Paul Graham are that: (1) he is a centrist, (2) he got rich through his work, (3) he does not hold t

by 4cao 6y ago

Apparently, some of the worst things that can be said about Paul Graham are that: (1) he is a centrist, (2) he got rich through his work, (3) he does not hold the US public education system in high regard, and (4) he advocated the use of, and was involved in trafficking Lisp code. About as eye-opening as it is shocking (i.e. in either case not much).

danbolt 6y ago
I think the article is suggesting that PG's writings are presenting a romanticized narrative of being an industrious entrepreneur for the purpose of encouraging young computer programmers to apply to Y Combinator.
- pas 6y ago
  Isn't that better than directly shipping those younglings into big corps? (And I'm not saying these two are the only options, but they seem to cover a lot of fresh grads. Also criticizing PG for thinking too highly of startup life is fair, but also maybe as useful as scolding the pope for thinking a bit too highly of faith.)
  - danbolt 6y ago
    I think it might be for graduates like Alexandr Wang who went to good schools and have more or less lead comfortable lives. If someone's had a less privileged upbringing and a career in software enables them to improve their lot, maybe a big corp would help them more than the lottery ticket of a startup. I worry the romantic narrative PG presents clouds the risk involved in investing a portion of your life into a startup. I think it's useful to criticize both the Pope and PG for situations like you mention. They have sizeable resources and influence and are deserving of a gadfly in the public sphere.
    - pas 6y ago
      Agreed, I think constructive criticism is warranted. (The issues mentioned with inequality are very-very much deserve the effort and attention. And one way to do something about it is to have more market participants, and one way for that is to start new companies. So startups. Even if there are problems with the whole VC-funded never-monetized undercutting of real businesses which have positive "unit economy". At the same time it seems impossible in many markets to go up against the incumbents without such deep pockets - though maybe VC money just leads to useless uncaring greedy copycats. But that's is a different discussion.) All in all, I simply don't think these verbal lashing-outs are at all helpful. They suck out the air from the very same topics that it hints at (ie. inequality).

by 4cao 6y ago

danbolt 6y ago

I think the article is suggesting that PG's writings are presenting a romanticized narrative of being an industrious entrepreneur for the purpose of encouraging young computer programmers to apply to Y Combinator.

pas 6y ago
Isn't that better than directly shipping those younglings into big corps? (And I'm not saying these two are the only options, but they seem to cover a lot of fresh grads. Also criticizing PG for thinking too highly of startup life is fair, but also maybe as useful as scolding the pope for thinking a bit too highly of faith.)
- danbolt 6y ago
  I think it might be for graduates like Alexandr Wang who went to good schools and have more or less lead comfortable lives. If someone's had a less privileged upbringing and a career in software enables them to improve their lot, maybe a big corp would help them more than the lottery ticket of a startup. I worry the romantic narrative PG presents clouds the risk involved in investing a portion of your life into a startup. I think it's useful to criticize both the Pope and PG for situations like you mention. They have sizeable resources and influence and are deserving of a gadfly in the public sphere.
  - pas 6y ago
    Agreed, I think constructive criticism is warranted. (The issues mentioned with inequality are very-very much deserve the effort and attention. And one way to do something about it is to have more market participants, and one way for that is to start new companies. So startups. Even if there are problems with the whole VC-funded never-monetized undercutting of real businesses which have positive "unit economy". At the same time it seems impossible in many markets to go up against the incumbents without such deep pockets - though maybe VC money just leads to useless uncaring greedy copycats. But that's is a different discussion.) All in all, I simply don't think these verbal lashing-outs are at all helpful. They suck out the air from the very same topics that it hints at (ie. inequality).