4 ms·

Many years ago HN had a post about Andreessen giving advice and I drunk posted that "the only reason people listen to him is because he's rich", only to have th

Many years ago HN had a post about Andreessen giving advice and I drunk posted that "the only reason people listen to him is because he's rich", only to have the honor of our lord and savior pg stating that my comment was "the dumbest thing he's ever heard". Yeah, I was drunk and bitter about a guy who was at the right place and the right time and sold out and is a bazilionaire. But Netscape's success really was only in making him and others rich. Ning failed too. No longer drunk and trying to be less bitter but I remain unimpressed. Thank you for the validation, for what it is ;-)

hipadev23 3y ago
[flagged]
antupis 3y ago
He has founded three successful companies Netscape, Opsware and A16Z so it’s not luck only.
- nine_zeros 3y ago
  When you also add all the companies his investments failed at, suddenly it becomes a game of numbers, that only the very wealthy can play.
- pstuart 3y ago
  Absolutely, skill and effort where required too. But also once you've got your first millions and network of investors, entrepreneurs, and talent then starting a new company is now in a pipeline that was predicated on the element of luck of the first success that started the pipeline. The man pitched NFTs as a worthy investment vehicle, for crying out loud. That is a solid case of him being wrong, ergo, his advice should not be considered indisputable.
cameldrv 3y ago
He and Eric Bina also created the first web browser with the IMG tag.
- pstuart 3y ago
  Of course talent and effort matter and should be recognized, but the only reason we're talking about him is because of his success, in which good fortune played a significant role in that happening.
  - cameldrv 3y ago
    Maybe. I think he’d still be reasonably famous even if the only thing he had done was Mosaic. I don’t agree with everything in his manifesto, but I think he’s achieved more than enough for people to refrain from painting all of his success as pure luck. If you disagree, make a counter argument!
    - pstuart 3y ago
      > refrain from painting all of his success as pure luck It's not that all of it is pure luck -- it's that it was a significant factor. The dotcom bubble was awash with cash and the distribution of same was not exactly merit based. And a fair chunk was being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people. Going back to the OP title, perhaps its overly harsh but we can meet in the middle that his success is not a guarantee that he's a savant. The fact that he pushed NFTs tarnishes his reputation in my eyes.

hipadev23 3y ago

[flagged]

antupis 3y ago

He has founded three successful companies Netscape, Opsware and A16Z so it’s not luck only.

nine_zeros 3y ago
When you also add all the companies his investments failed at, suddenly it becomes a game of numbers, that only the very wealthy can play.
pstuart 3y ago
Absolutely, skill and effort where required too. But also once you've got your first millions and network of investors, entrepreneurs, and talent then starting a new company is now in a pipeline that was predicated on the element of luck of the first success that started the pipeline. The man pitched NFTs as a worthy investment vehicle, for crying out loud. That is a solid case of him being wrong, ergo, his advice should not be considered indisputable.

cameldrv 3y ago

He and Eric Bina also created the first web browser with the IMG tag.

pstuart 3y ago
Of course talent and effort matter and should be recognized, but the only reason we're talking about him is because of his success, in which good fortune played a significant role in that happening.
- cameldrv 3y ago
  Maybe. I think he’d still be reasonably famous even if the only thing he had done was Mosaic. I don’t agree with everything in his manifesto, but I think he’s achieved more than enough for people to refrain from painting all of his success as pure luck. If you disagree, make a counter argument!
  - pstuart 3y ago
    > refrain from painting all of his success as pure luck It's not that all of it is pure luck -- it's that it was a significant factor. The dotcom bubble was awash with cash and the distribution of same was not exactly merit based. And a fair chunk was being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people. Going back to the OP title, perhaps its overly harsh but we can meet in the middle that his success is not a guarantee that he's a savant. The fact that he pushed NFTs tarnishes his reputation in my eyes.