5 ms·

What are his reasonable points? That startups are hard? Everyone says that. If you took out all the insults, hate, and swearing, there wouldn't be much there, a

by paul 18y ago

What are his reasonable points? That startups are hard? Everyone says that. If you took out all the insults, hate, and swearing, there wouldn't be much there, and it certainly wouldn't have as many votes as it does (because it would just be yet another, "startups are hard" blog post). It's possible that he _could_ have an interesting blog post here though. If he spent less time attacking people and more time thinking about his motivations, there might be some genuinely useful insights. His comment about "taking shit" from everyone is somewhat revealing. It may be that he simple has the wrong personality for this. I like our users (well, most of them), and it's part of what I like about my job.

timr 18y ago
Oh, come on....if you're even slightly capable of understanding the subtle linguistic nuances of his sarcasm (ahem), it's easy to see the main points: 1) Startup success has a lot to do with luck. 2) There are many people out there who have confused luck with skill, and they're often the loudest, but they're not necessarily giving good advice. 3) Startups are not a good/reliable way to make money, when you can be a doctor, lawyer, banker (or even a corporate drone). 4) Startups are a good way to maintain your independence. 5) ...but you'll still have to take a lot of shit. 6) Starting a successful company doesn't make you smart, virile or attractive. 7) Perhaps the only good reason to start a company is because it's fun.
- paul 18y ago
  Perhaps, but it still reads like a "kicking the dog" post to me. (also, I don't know if he'd agree with points 4 and 7) BTW, I think the reason his writing annoys me is because startups ARE difficult. The people attempting them have enough challenges to deal with -- they don't need this guy shitting on their heads (and making it seem "cool").
  - timr 18y ago
    I generally agree with you about his tone. The attack on pg was obviously inane link-baiting (which seems to have worked), and the guy has made his name from being negative and destructive. Still, he writes with such over-the-top viciousness that I find it hard to take it seriously. I'd probably feel more strongly about it if it were my head being shat upon, but I tend to write off his bitterness as just another way of grabbing attention.
- volida 18y ago
  well he's certainly chosen a bad way to showcase any point he'd like to share while making himself unwanted for anyone to co-founders with... I understand a lot to know this was not intented to be about startups as much about spreading discouragment and causing invalidation to any number left that werent crap of the points he made. I am surprised to see startup folks have beaten the bite, therefore all this unnessary discussion about someone who missed to take failure the right way.
- crocus 18y ago
  This is much better than the original. But if someone wrote it this way, without all the additional nastiness, would it have gotten so many votes? Which I suppose probably explains a lot of the nastiness. It's a way to get attention.

by paul 18y ago

timr 18y ago

Oh, come on....if you're even slightly capable of understanding the subtle linguistic nuances of his sarcasm (ahem), it's easy to see the main points: 1) Startup success has a lot to do with luck. 2) There are many people out there who have confused luck with skill, and they're often the loudest, but they're not necessarily giving good advice. 3) Startups are not a good/reliable way to make money, when you can be a doctor, lawyer, banker (or even a corporate drone). 4) Startups are a good way to maintain your independence. 5) ...but you'll still have to take a lot of shit. 6) Starting a successful company doesn't make you smart, virile or attractive. 7) Perhaps the only good reason to start a company is because it's fun.

paul 18y ago
Perhaps, but it still reads like a "kicking the dog" post to me. (also, I don't know if he'd agree with points 4 and 7) BTW, I think the reason his writing annoys me is because startups ARE difficult. The people attempting them have enough challenges to deal with -- they don't need this guy shitting on their heads (and making it seem "cool").
- timr 18y ago
  I generally agree with you about his tone. The attack on pg was obviously inane link-baiting (which seems to have worked), and the guy has made his name from being negative and destructive. Still, he writes with such over-the-top viciousness that I find it hard to take it seriously. I'd probably feel more strongly about it if it were my head being shat upon, but I tend to write off his bitterness as just another way of grabbing attention.
volida 18y ago
well he's certainly chosen a bad way to showcase any point he'd like to share while making himself unwanted for anyone to co-founders with... I understand a lot to know this was not intented to be about startups as much about spreading discouragment and causing invalidation to any number left that werent crap of the points he made. I am surprised to see startup folks have beaten the bite, therefore all this unnessary discussion about someone who missed to take failure the right way.
crocus 18y ago
This is much better than the original. But if someone wrote it this way, without all the additional nastiness, would it have gotten so many votes? Which I suppose probably explains a lot of the nastiness. It's a way to get attention.