6 ms·

Come on now, let's not go overboard here and compare YC to the Manhattan Project or Apollo missions. Doing a start-up is hard work, but we're talking about a sl

Come on now, let's not go overboard here and compare YC to the Manhattan Project or Apollo missions. Doing a start-up is hard work, but we're talking about a slightly different scale here.

pc 18y ago
Where did I compare them? My comment just pointed out that the definition of a cult used in the blog post falls down badly when applied to famous successful projects (which we can presumably agree were not cults), and is therefore either being misused or broken.
- kschrader 18y ago
  He's using the accepted psychological definition of a cult. The reference is right there in the post.
  - theoneill 18y ago
    Hardly. Did you try following the link in the post? The link text says "textbook definition of a cult," but it's just a link to the Wikipedia article. This list is one of several that appear in the article, and judging from the multiple citations it is an amalgam created from several different sources.
xlnt 18y ago
The way he "compared" them was to say the list of criterion applies to both of them, and that it clearly shouldn't apply to the other things. What's wrong with that?
h34t 18y ago
Why do you think starting a company is less demanding than being a member of the Manhattan Project or Apollo teams? "Scale" is exactly the right word -- Apollo didn't happen because one person worked more insanely hard than anyone else had worked in the history of the universe. It was a large project with a lot of people (and a lot of science). Yes, a lot of them worked hard. But please, measure effort on a human scale. It doesn't matter whether you're starting a company or developing a new technology for space travel -- if you're pouring your whole life into it, the same psychological conditions can apply.
- krschultz 18y ago
  Except, in Apollo people died/can die. They didn't work 18 hours a day because you make mistakes at that point. If your "web application" fails, no one really bats an eye. But if you start killing people - it is a bit different. Please don't compare these toy companies that get created, which barely have a business model much less a purpose, to one of the greatest achievements of all time just because you sit in front of your computer for long hours.
  - mechanical_fish 18y ago
    Except, in Apollo people died/can die. That is a rather silly criterion. All engineers build things that can kill people if they go wrong. That's what engineers do. You think that social software can't be used to kill people? Do you know the number of people (mostly women) who are murdered each year by stalkers, most of whom are former lovers or spouses? Do you want to bet that none of those stalkers have used, say, Google to help locate their victims? Do you think that having your identity stolen and your bank account drained can't lead directly to your death? What, do you live in a country where health insurance is guaranteed to all citizens? (Oh, wait -- perhaps you do. Never mind.) "Toy companies"? Interesting choice of phrase. Here's what one minute's Googling found for me: A court case, Estate of Matthew C. Metzgar v. Playskool, Inc: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=3rd&navby=case&no=940784p http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=3rd&#... the plaintiffs' expert, E. Patrick McGuire, reported for the record that in one year studied, 1988, there were eleven deaths due to aspiration of small toys or toy parts by children... the plaintiffs submitted a CPSC estimate reported in the House Congressional Record that in each year from 1980-88, an average of 3,200 small children were treated in hospital emergency rooms for toy related ingestion and aspiration injuries. The CPSC also reported that between 1980 and 1991, 186 children choked on small toys, toy parts, and other children's products. Frankly, from the viewpoint of danger and death, the space program's engineers are wimps: They do very dangerous things, but they only endanger a handful of people at a time. A toy engineer who specifies the wrong paint can kill hundreds of babies at once. Social software is pretty safe, but if the odds that a Facebook user will be killed because of a Facebook design error are as small as one per 100 million user-years [1], the company stands to lose 1 user per year, because they have 90 million active users. [1] I have no data, but I doubt the odds are that small. I'd be astonished if Facebook hadn't already been a factor in thousands of suicides, for example. One of the reasons why humans are so incredibly talented at socializing is that it's fraught with peril.

Come on now, let's not go overboard here and compare YC to the Manhattan Project or Apollo missions. Doing a start-up is hard work, but we're talking about a slightly different scale here.

pc 18y ago

Where did I compare them? My comment just pointed out that the definition of a cult used in the blog post falls down badly when applied to famous successful projects (which we can presumably agree were not cults), and is therefore either being misused or broken.

kschrader 18y ago
He's using the accepted psychological definition of a cult. The reference is right there in the post.
- theoneill 18y ago
  Hardly. Did you try following the link in the post? The link text says "textbook definition of a cult," but it's just a link to the Wikipedia article. This list is one of several that appear in the article, and judging from the multiple citations it is an amalgam created from several different sources.

xlnt 18y ago

The way he "compared" them was to say the list of criterion applies to both of them, and that it clearly shouldn't apply to the other things. What's wrong with that?

h34t 18y ago

Why do you think starting a company is less demanding than being a member of the Manhattan Project or Apollo teams? "Scale" is exactly the right word -- Apollo didn't happen because one person worked more insanely hard than anyone else had worked in the history of the universe. It was a large project with a lot of people (and a lot of science). Yes, a lot of them worked hard. But please, measure effort on a human scale. It doesn't matter whether you're starting a company or developing a new technology for space travel -- if you're pouring your whole life into it, the same psychological conditions can apply.

krschultz 18y ago
Except, in Apollo people died/can die. They didn't work 18 hours a day because you make mistakes at that point. If your "web application" fails, no one really bats an eye. But if you start killing people - it is a bit different. Please don't compare these toy companies that get created, which barely have a business model much less a purpose, to one of the greatest achievements of all time just because you sit in front of your computer for long hours.
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  Except, in Apollo people died/can die. That is a rather silly criterion. All engineers build things that can kill people if they go wrong. That's what engineers do. You think that social software can't be used to kill people? Do you know the number of people (mostly women) who are murdered each year by stalkers, most of whom are former lovers or spouses? Do you want to bet that none of those stalkers have used, say, Google to help locate their victims? Do you think that having your identity stolen and your bank account drained can't lead directly to your death? What, do you live in a country where health insurance is guaranteed to all citizens? (Oh, wait -- perhaps you do. Never mind.) "Toy companies"? Interesting choice of phrase. Here's what one minute's Googling found for me: A court case, Estate of Matthew C. Metzgar v. Playskool, Inc: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=3rd&navby=case&no=940784p http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=3rd&#... the plaintiffs' expert, E. Patrick McGuire, reported for the record that in one year studied, 1988, there were eleven deaths due to aspiration of small toys or toy parts by children... the plaintiffs submitted a CPSC estimate reported in the House Congressional Record that in each year from 1980-88, an average of 3,200 small children were treated in hospital emergency rooms for toy related ingestion and aspiration injuries. The CPSC also reported that between 1980 and 1991, 186 children choked on small toys, toy parts, and other children's products. Frankly, from the viewpoint of danger and death, the space program's engineers are wimps: They do very dangerous things, but they only endanger a handful of people at a time. A toy engineer who specifies the wrong paint can kill hundreds of babies at once. Social software is pretty safe, but if the odds that a Facebook user will be killed because of a Facebook design error are as small as one per 100 million user-years [1], the company stands to lose 1 user per year, because they have 90 million active users. [1] I have no data, but I doubt the odds are that small. I'd be astonished if Facebook hadn't already been a factor in thousands of suicides, for example. One of the reasons why humans are so incredibly talented at socializing is that it's fraught with peril.