7 ms·
Once
- swombat 14y agoThat's only true when the cost of failure is low. That's a small, but very important caveat. That being said, I don't buy the "entrepreneurship is very risky" line. I think it's a lot less risky than many other careers that are commonly considered "safe".
- nbashaw 14y agoWord. I should make that a footnote. You're totally right.
- AznHisoka 14y agoYep, easy to say failing is cheap on paper. But once you experience it, it feels morally excruciating. Hard to come back from a couple of failures
- marklindhout 14y agoTrue that. Losing money hurts, and will always be connected psychologically to that 'failure'. Nassim Nicholas Taleb (http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com) in his book “The Black Swan” talks about one of his friends, a stock trader, with a very specific strategy. This strategy involves losing lots of small amounts over time, and once every 6 years or so, one enormous win. He explained that his trader friend needed to check his track record continuously to remind him of the actual benefit of this strategy, because even the small losses were eating away at him. Up to a point where he wanted to give up.
- rmason 14y agoIsn't that the whole point of Lean Startup? Lower the cost of trying which means you get more swings of the bat for a given amount of capital.
- rudiger 14y agoAnd for a given amount of time. (Which can be more valuable in dollar terms than the capital needed.)
- moron 14y agoThat's true, you only need to be right once. But you may end up being right zero times.
- marklindhout 14y agoTry naught, get naught.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- jcnnghm 14y agoUnless you run out of liquidity before you are right once.
- oskarth 14y agoI appreciate and believe in the message, but perhaps it's time to consider the quote: a startup exit is opium for ambitious techies That's not to say you shouldn't go for it, just make sure it's not your opium in life.
- rhizome 14y agoYou also have to go into it with your eyes open, because your deal is not going to improve from what you negotiate at the start. Not all startup exits are life-changing.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- dmvaldman 14y agoi expanded on this idea in a recent blog post: the psychology of tackling hard problems http://davidvaldman.com/post/20027940591/psychofhardproblems http://davidvaldman.com/post/20027940591/psychofhardproblems
- ScottWhigham 14y agoI'm sorry - I just don't understand (a) why this is a blog post, and then (b) why it was submitted here. This reads like a comment on someone else's blog, or a "note to self", or a Facebook status update. And yet, here we are - it has 33 upvotes as I write this. I wish there was some way we could say, "only count votes from accounts older than 1 year" in the "points" so we could see just how much influence the newbies have in story votes.
- bobds 14y ago"only count votes from accounts older than 1 year" I think pg indulged us in this experiment. IIRC the front page was pretty much the same.
- 286c8cb04bda 14y agoIt's available at: http://news.ycombinator.com/classic http://news.ycombinator.com/classic
- epaga 14y agoand note this post is front page there as well...
- SkyMarshal 14y agoIt almost deserves flagging for the completely uninformative submission title as well.
- EvilTerran 14y agoI'm also sorry, but... Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- emehrkay 14y agoThis is an okay blog. I am enjoying the entries.
- sheldor 14y agoI don't think the statistics are accurate. They may apply for most of us out there but once you're on the train, the odds could be better for you (or worse of course). I've seen people succeeding in several areas two or three times in a row, which means they don't apply to the 99% of failure each time. Maybe it's a matter of starting to know things from the inside and the odds could easily switch to your favor. Besides, pessimism is rarely followed by success.
- windsurfer 14y agoI'm approaching finding employment the same way. You only have 1 career, after all. Sending your resume to fifty places you wouldn't enjoy working at serves no purpose other than diluting your efforts. Put 100% of your time and mental capacity into only a small number of paths is best. Being wrong a few times is fine, but being wrong without giving it your best shot is what you'll regret.
- waxjar 14y agoGambling is generally considered bad.
- danssig 14y agoYou think so? I think Gambling irresponsibly is considered bad, but Gambling if you can afford it is pretty fun.
- SpiderX 14y agoI don't click on any links that are not descriptive enough, mr nbashaw. Please, when you submit your link please describe or hint at what exactly I will see if I will follow the link.
- nbashaw 14y ago"Once" isn't a news story. It's something you already know but need to be reminded of from time to time. Giving it a functionally descriptive title would spoil the effect.
- EREFUNDO 14y agoMy dad asked me once why I would ever leave my good paying Finance job to start a company with a 1% statistical chance of success. I told him that if you want to belong to the top 1% you have to take the 1% chance of success.
- leif 14y agoYour company has a 1% chance of success? Where do I sign up?
- EREFUNDO 14y agohaha we're still on stealth mode but we're building a system that will open online payments to the rest of the world. We mean EVERYONE!. 80-90% of people in emerging market economies have no access to online payments because they don't have bank accounts or credit cards. Our system will bypass that requirement and just enable people to accept payments immediately, it's that simple. Of course we are willing to discuss/brainstorm our ideas with other entrepreneurs.
- leif 14y agoCompanies like instagram, when they hit high profile exits, only add fuel to the fire that is hordes of decent people that would otherwise be excellent, productive, happy employees, wanting to play the startup lottery. I don't know much about startup financing economics, but when it comes to talented people, it seems to me like there is a huge bubble. Thought experiment time. Suppose you have a 1% chance of cashing out spectacularly enough to live off the proceeds for the rest of your life, and provide for your children too. You need to get 69 "at bats" before you have more than a 50% chance of winning (.99^69 is about .49983). Are you going to start 69 startups before you die? No? Then please, unless you really have a good idea, just go work for someone else (even if it's a startup), you'll be happier. I know, I know, execution is everything, but you do need a good idea to execute.
- 6ren 14y ago> Normal people are pessimists [about new ideas] It's not that they're pessimists, it's just that they aren't interested in new ideas. I'm reading Guns, germs and steel, and it notes one advantage of European civilization was that it had access to large mammals that were easily domesticated, and one of the ways in which they were easy to domesticate was that they are hierarchically organized socially, and "follow the leader". This helps, because humans just needed to insert themselves at the top of the hierarchy to control the herd/pack. I'd realized some time ago that we ourselves are also domesticated, but just this morning, in watching a dog cross the road following its owner, I realized that human beings themselves are socially hierarchical, and this makes us easier to domesticate, and easier to control. We have been controlled by gods/priests, within militaries, within corporations, within sports, taste in movies, TV, reddit memes, pop music, pop psychology, political movements, the habit of obedience we have towards the law, scientific paradigms, by intellectual ideas, by principles - even free-thinking intellectual radicals have leaders they read and follow. Marketers try to identify influencers, thought-leaders, trend-setters. If you control the top of the hierarchy, the rest will follow. So it's not that normal people are pessimists about new ideas, it's just that they follow what the leader of their hierarchy follows. It takes time for an idea to get to that point, and by then it's no longer "new". Even within startups, there is a great deal of this - people follow the popular companies, brands, products, personalities, from Apple to vim to lisp to Alan Kay. They have religious wars. The human being who really does follow a new idea for its own sake is rare and in a straightforward biological sense, is not normal.
- Mz 14y agoHave an upvote, which in this case does not specifically express agreement.
- notJim 14y agoIt is incredibly difficult for me to express how much I hate this kind of smug startup boosterism. There are hundreds, thousands, millions of reasons not to start a startup that don't have a goddamned thing to do with pessimism. It's like you've never met, talked to, or considered the possibility of the existence of anyone who isn't caught up in the silicon valley echo-chamber. Your dreams do not make you morally superior. Your ambition does not make you a better person. It does not make you smarter than everyone else. It doesn't make you immoral, a bad person, or stupid either. Having the maturity and humility to recognize that everyone chooses their own path for their own reasons, many of which are beyond their control, is the only way we can possibly relate to other human beings and live a humane existence.
- count 14y agoI agree with almost everything you have said, with the exception of one principle. The drive/desire/ambition to do 'better' DOES make you a better person. The people with that quality are the ones who've provided every major improvement in quality of life around the world.
- notJim 14y agonote: had a totally different answer here which I decided I did not like. Apologies. I had a lot of difficulty replying to your comment. I feel intuitively that it's wrong, but it's hard to articulate why. I guess there are a couple of problems: a) ambition often drives both good and harmful behavior. Because of this, I feel that ambition is morally neutral. b) I rankle at the notion that people can be "better" than one another, except in extreme circumstances. Is Mark Zuckerberg better for inventing Facebook, or is my dad better for making a career of healing people's marriages and personal problems through psychotherapy? My dad likes what he does, and is successful, but those who know him would not describe him as ambitious per se. Personally, I believe that Mark Zuckerberg and my father do what they do for their own reasons, and not out of altruism or a desire to make a better world. Or maybe they both do what they do out of a desire to make a better world. I don't think either of them is better than the other.
- 14y ago
- ilaksh 14y agoThere are lots of real problems actually. I think this is a better explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion