4 ms·

The reaction to "success" posts (in monetary terms) on HN have been quite disheartening. I don't know what's behind the change in sentiment (maybe the influx o

The reaction to "success" posts (in monetary terms) on HN have been quite disheartening. I don't know what's behind the change in sentiment (maybe the influx of new users?), but big returns require big risk. It's absolute lunacy to pursue a startup, but people do it anyway because we've created a system that rewards ambition. A system that has elevated the standard of living consistently since it's inception. For those preaching "survivorship bias", the "crabs in a bucket" fallacy is alive and well here.

jdminhbg 6y ago
There's definitely been negativity around forever (infamously, the Dropbox announcement post), but it subjectively feels worse now. Not sure if that's real or just nostalgia. Regardless, it's still disheartening. There's a strain of thought that correctly notes that every success story has some luck involved and then incorrectly applies that lesson to believe that it's a 100% lottery. You can, in fact, still learn from people who have succeeded.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  I think it has at least something to do with the startup/VC shift from “building” $thing to “exploiting” $thing. It used to be that the huge tech companies made something of value. Lately it just feels like they’re extracting value from the system. Uber exploits “contractor” loopholes, AirBnb exploits hotel/housing regulations, Facebook exploits our privacy and democracy. That is pretty grim. If that’s the way to “succeed” with a startup these days then I do think startups are pretty grim. I can’t speak for others but I don’t really want any part of creating a company like that.
  - jdminhbg 6y ago
    If for you life before and after Uber/Airbnb are the same except with different middlemen taking a cut, we live in such different realities I'm not sure how we'd ever have a productive conversation. Airbnb has made a huge difference in my life, by letting me use a short-term rental to decide if I wanted to move to a different city. They built something real, and I'm ecstatic they did.
- gjulianm 6y ago
  Most people have lost the tech amazement and are looking critically at these companies, and their effects in the real world. We have been seeing for a few years already the other side of the coin, and the story of "the entrepeneurs and their big piles of money" isolated of the rest of the world is not enough anymore.
Privacy846 6y ago
What I see here in the comments are (in part) people that are concerned that the business model is just based on exploiting regulatory loopholes. Is the concern for people’s living safety (as well as other things) a crabs-in-a-bucket “fallacy”? Come to think of it, maybe regulation itself is a fallacy, in your mind.
- hunterhod 6y ago
  Let's agree to respect each other and refrain from personal attacks. What do you define as "living safety"?
sjg007 6y ago
I think one of the reasons for this is that people think YC has always expressed this be a "force for good ideal." You know, do the hard things etc... Maybe that was my misunderstanding but I think that this is a key misunderstanding. In fact, that they are expressly a force for good for the entrepreneur and startups and I guess ideally, a net good for society otherwise it wouldn't work. But it is pretty clear that billions of dollars and centralization (platforms) really do shape markets. So we have AirBnB, DoorDash etc... are they net good? Are they a massive long term grift on society? I don't think the answer is clear. Is the resultant destruction creative? Do we need new regulations? Probably. I am not saying YC invested in something like JUUL and Altria but take those as the most extreme... and even they are debate-able... are they a smoking cessation device? or addiction 2.0? I mean I would say net bad because they clearly do not market or offer themselves as a smoking cessation device, but rather as an alternative that's just as addictive and as it appears quite harmful bad. That they market to teens in my opinion makes them net bad even though they cut down on smoking. Breathing in super heated water is apparently just as bad as smoking and maybe worse.. Anyway, back to the entrepreneur, the model was in contrast to the search to find random Angels, and then the traditional VC model which would be to take the money and kick out the founders. Being first in the funnel gives you vertical integration and it helps if you are pro-entrepreneur to get your customers. The rest as they say is history.
jes5199 6y ago
what’s risky about 3 dudes borrowing money and living in an apartment in San Francisco? hell, they don’t even have to pay the money back if the business fails! they might have to give up and go home I guess, how embarrassing. There’s no risk here. It’s recreational gambling for the investor class, and play time for privileged white men who have no responsibilities.
- hunterhod 6y ago
  Did you not read about all of the credit card debt they racked up to keep the company afloat, before they had applied to YC?

jdminhbg 6y ago

There's definitely been negativity around forever (infamously, the Dropbox announcement post), but it subjectively feels worse now. Not sure if that's real or just nostalgia. Regardless, it's still disheartening. There's a strain of thought that correctly notes that every success story has some luck involved and then incorrectly applies that lesson to believe that it's a 100% lottery. You can, in fact, still learn from people who have succeeded.

elliekelly 6y ago
I think it has at least something to do with the startup/VC shift from “building” $thing to “exploiting” $thing. It used to be that the huge tech companies made something of value. Lately it just feels like they’re extracting value from the system. Uber exploits “contractor” loopholes, AirBnb exploits hotel/housing regulations, Facebook exploits our privacy and democracy. That is pretty grim. If that’s the way to “succeed” with a startup these days then I do think startups are pretty grim. I can’t speak for others but I don’t really want any part of creating a company like that.
- jdminhbg 6y ago
  If for you life before and after Uber/Airbnb are the same except with different middlemen taking a cut, we live in such different realities I'm not sure how we'd ever have a productive conversation. Airbnb has made a huge difference in my life, by letting me use a short-term rental to decide if I wanted to move to a different city. They built something real, and I'm ecstatic they did.
gjulianm 6y ago
Most people have lost the tech amazement and are looking critically at these companies, and their effects in the real world. We have been seeing for a few years already the other side of the coin, and the story of "the entrepeneurs and their big piles of money" isolated of the rest of the world is not enough anymore.

Privacy846 6y ago

What I see here in the comments are (in part) people that are concerned that the business model is just based on exploiting regulatory loopholes. Is the concern for people’s living safety (as well as other things) a crabs-in-a-bucket “fallacy”? Come to think of it, maybe regulation itself is a fallacy, in your mind.

hunterhod 6y ago
Let's agree to respect each other and refrain from personal attacks. What do you define as "living safety"?

sjg007 6y ago

I think one of the reasons for this is that people think YC has always expressed this be a "force for good ideal." You know, do the hard things etc... Maybe that was my misunderstanding but I think that this is a key misunderstanding. In fact, that they are expressly a force for good for the entrepreneur and startups and I guess ideally, a net good for society otherwise it wouldn't work. But it is pretty clear that billions of dollars and centralization (platforms) really do shape markets. So we have AirBnB, DoorDash etc... are they net good? Are they a massive long term grift on society? I don't think the answer is clear. Is the resultant destruction creative? Do we need new regulations? Probably. I am not saying YC invested in something like JUUL and Altria but take those as the most extreme... and even they are debate-able... are they a smoking cessation device? or addiction 2.0? I mean I would say net bad because they clearly do not market or offer themselves as a smoking cessation device, but rather as an alternative that's just as addictive and as it appears quite harmful bad. That they market to teens in my opinion makes them net bad even though they cut down on smoking. Breathing in super heated water is apparently just as bad as smoking and maybe worse.. Anyway, back to the entrepreneur, the model was in contrast to the search to find random Angels, and then the traditional VC model which would be to take the money and kick out the founders. Being first in the funnel gives you vertical integration and it helps if you are pro-entrepreneur to get your customers. The rest as they say is history.

jes5199 6y ago

what’s risky about 3 dudes borrowing money and living in an apartment in San Francisco? hell, they don’t even have to pay the money back if the business fails! they might have to give up and go home I guess, how embarrassing. There’s no risk here. It’s recreational gambling for the investor class, and play time for privileged white men who have no responsibilities.

hunterhod 6y ago
Did you not read about all of the credit card debt they racked up to keep the company afloat, before they had applied to YC?