3 ms·

As a startup person, I like the startups where the spiel is “Get filthy rich by changing the world” the most. As long as I get to partake in the riches.

by Swizec 5y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
As a regular person, I like startups where the spiel is "Have a fabulous life and be pretty comfortable while doing things that even after some serious devil's advocacy seem as if they might make the world a better place".
heavyset_go 5y ago
I've had good rapport with those who are honest about their startups being businesses, as they're usually also the same types who understand that working for them is just a job, and that a job at a startup comes with its own risks, as well. People that go out of their way to say that their startups have a higher mission make me uneasy. I don't know if they're just trying to convince others that they're running something other than for-profit businesses driven by expected returns on investment for investors, or if they truly believe it themselves. It's either borderline manipulation or delusion, and neither are something I want to hitch myself to.
dotancohen 5y ago
I can think of a couple of companies whose public face represents "Get filthy rich by changing the world". Tesla, for one. Maybe SpaceX too. Oh, no, that reads like I just turned into a Musk fanboy. Surely there's got to be some non-Musk company that I can add to that list?
- skissane 5y ago
  > Surely there's got to be some non-Musk company that I can add to that list? Biotech startups? Develop a cure for horrible disease X (save lives, give people a few more years with their families, etc–feels good?)–and then get rich selling that cure. I think Blue Origin's messaging is in principle similar to SpaceX (Bezos wants to save the environment by moving manufacturing to orbit, etc.) It is just that SpaceX rather obviously delivers on that message, and has grown rich delivering; Blue Origin hasn't delivered much yet, and it is hard to grow rich prior to delivery–but maybe, give them a few more years, they'll finally get their act together, and they'll become more SpaceX-like.
mushbino 5y ago
It seems to be the case that if you give someone a bunch of money, they'll stop wanting to change the world for the better. There are thousands of billionaires who could each end hunger and homelessness but have chosen not to.
- simonh 5y ago
  The resources available to nation states dwarf those of billionaires, and it’s they’re specific actual job to do it, yet they too have failed to end hunger and homelessness. Bill Gates has sunk untold billions into humanitarian aid and its a drop in the ocean.
  - NoGravitas 5y ago
    Eventually, you start looking into why the governments fail to end hunger and homelessness. Then, people start calling you a tankie.
    - simonh 5y ago
      Because hunger and homeless ness were of course unknown under Stalinism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Debate_over_famines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...
      - mushbino 5y ago
        I'm not seeing anything about homelessness in the article you linked to. Just for perspective, here's the opposite side of the coin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist_mass_killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist_mass_killings

As a startup person, I like the startups where the spiel is “Get filthy rich by changing the world” the most. As long as I get to partake in the riches.

by Swizec 5y ago

As a startup person, I like the startups where the spiel is “Get filthy rich by changing the world” the most. As long as I get to partake in the riches.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

As a regular person, I like startups where the spiel is "Have a fabulous life and be pretty comfortable while doing things that even after some serious devil's advocacy seem as if they might make the world a better place".

heavyset_go 5y ago

I've had good rapport with those who are honest about their startups being businesses, as they're usually also the same types who understand that working for them is just a job, and that a job at a startup comes with its own risks, as well. People that go out of their way to say that their startups have a higher mission make me uneasy. I don't know if they're just trying to convince others that they're running something other than for-profit businesses driven by expected returns on investment for investors, or if they truly believe it themselves. It's either borderline manipulation or delusion, and neither are something I want to hitch myself to.

dotancohen 5y ago

I can think of a couple of companies whose public face represents "Get filthy rich by changing the world". Tesla, for one. Maybe SpaceX too. Oh, no, that reads like I just turned into a Musk fanboy. Surely there's got to be some non-Musk company that I can add to that list?

skissane 5y ago
> Surely there's got to be some non-Musk company that I can add to that list? Biotech startups? Develop a cure for horrible disease X (save lives, give people a few more years with their families, etc–feels good?)–and then get rich selling that cure. I think Blue Origin's messaging is in principle similar to SpaceX (Bezos wants to save the environment by moving manufacturing to orbit, etc.) It is just that SpaceX rather obviously delivers on that message, and has grown rich delivering; Blue Origin hasn't delivered much yet, and it is hard to grow rich prior to delivery–but maybe, give them a few more years, they'll finally get their act together, and they'll become more SpaceX-like.

mushbino 5y ago

It seems to be the case that if you give someone a bunch of money, they'll stop wanting to change the world for the better. There are thousands of billionaires who could each end hunger and homelessness but have chosen not to.

simonh 5y ago
The resources available to nation states dwarf those of billionaires, and it’s they’re specific actual job to do it, yet they too have failed to end hunger and homelessness. Bill Gates has sunk untold billions into humanitarian aid and its a drop in the ocean.
- NoGravitas 5y ago
  Eventually, you start looking into why the governments fail to end hunger and homelessness. Then, people start calling you a tankie.
  - simonh 5y ago
    Because hunger and homeless ness were of course unknown under Stalinism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Debate_over_famines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...
    - mushbino 5y ago
      I'm not seeing anything about homelessness in the article you linked to. Just for perspective, here's the opposite side of the coin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist_mass_killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist_mass_killings