4 ms·

Here's a thread where you knock "mundane, income-producing businesses..." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=175469 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=175469

by chimi 14y ago

Here's a thread where you knock "mundane, income-producing businesses..." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=175469 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=175469 As it turns out, it's a carsonified post. Strange. I also remember a post where someone listed a whole bunch of awesome bootstrapped companies and you said, basically, that none of them was at the level you consider successful. EDIT -- here's the one I remembered! Awesome, the thread from 549 days ago no less: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2556959 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2556959 Where someone mentioned a list of successful bootstrapped companies with million $$ exits or revenues and you say: "If you constructed a list of the top technology companies, few to zero of these would appear on it." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2558576 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2558576 Okay, so those companies are (edit: NOT) "Top Technology Companies" but neither are thousands, perhaps millions of group founded, vc funded companies that follow your path either. Your attitude toward bootstrapped and single-founder companies is one of extreme negativity and I don't think it's warranted. Also edit and bit tongue in cheek: Wal-Mart was a single founder company, so the top two retail giants in the entire world were founded by individuals rather than groups, so that data tells me that to be the BIGGEST in the entire world, maybe you should consider being a single founder.

pg 14y ago
Presumably it's the "mundane" you think is disparaging. But it was in reply to this: More of us should be focusing on building simple, focused, small-team web apps that meet everyday needs. Am I saying we should kill our dreams of changing the world? No. But we all need to admit that YouTube, Facebook, Bebo, Google and Twitter just aren’t the norm. Instead of desperately trying to create the next phenomenon, which is highly unlikely, why not aim for something that’s definitely achievable? I.e. The word "mundane" was simply a reference to the concept he introduces of something that is not a phenomenon, but instead meets everyday needs. Considering that the example Merriam-Webster gives of the use of mundane is the mundane concerns of day-to-day life it seems to me I got about as close as one can to choosing the perfect adjective for things that "meet everyday needs." This is why I hate arguing on the Internet. All this work for nothing.
- marshallp 14y ago
  That's really pushing it PG, it's quite clear what your actual intent was. You dislike arguing on the net because you don't want to be called out on your mistakes.
- jmilloy 14y ago
  No, the mundane was not disparaging. It was the previous sentence where you suggested that anyone defining success differently from you was "behind", which is exactly the point. Consider the alternative, where you simply argue for why a certain threshold is the correct one for success, without casting a judgement on people who think differently than you. It doesn't even matter if the statement is objectively accurate; it's irrelevant and disparaging.
pg 14y ago
As for your other example (which is about bootstrapped companies, which is not even the topic of this thread), I'm not gratuitously introducing the concept of top technology companies as a way of disparaging the companies he lists. That concept was introduced in the grandparent: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2557078 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2557078 What sentence in that comment is false?
- clarky07 14y ago
  You said funding was necessary, he gave a list of 6 companies without funding that were hugely successful by any measuring stick that doesn't include Apple, certainly life changing FU money for the founders. You called them both outliers (maybe true, but it's not like it was just 1 company) and "not successful enough."
Gatsky 14y ago
The benefits of being a solo founder are pretty obvious (eg I can start now, I don't have to deal with another person or worry about equity etc) but the disadvantages are not very clear if you are just starting out. This is why balanced advice from experienced people is useful. You seem to be suggesting that PG's advice is at the very least creating bad vibes or perhaps even that he is trying to reshape reality for mercenary purposes. This is frankly a bit nuts considering how much carefully considered free help and advice PG gives out in his essays alone. PG's original point is sound. The OP's blog post could have said what it wanted to say without falsely attributing PG's or Techstars' motives to greed.

by chimi 14y ago

pg 14y ago

Presumably it's the "mundane" you think is disparaging. But it was in reply to this: More of us should be focusing on building simple, focused, small-team web apps that meet everyday needs. Am I saying we should kill our dreams of changing the world? No. But we all need to admit that YouTube, Facebook, Bebo, Google and Twitter just aren’t the norm. Instead of desperately trying to create the next phenomenon, which is highly unlikely, why not aim for something that’s definitely achievable? I.e. The word "mundane" was simply a reference to the concept he introduces of something that is not a phenomenon, but instead meets everyday needs. Considering that the example Merriam-Webster gives of the use of mundane is the mundane concerns of day-to-day life it seems to me I got about as close as one can to choosing the perfect adjective for things that "meet everyday needs." This is why I hate arguing on the Internet. All this work for nothing.

marshallp 14y ago
That's really pushing it PG, it's quite clear what your actual intent was. You dislike arguing on the net because you don't want to be called out on your mistakes.
jmilloy 14y ago
No, the mundane was not disparaging. It was the previous sentence where you suggested that anyone defining success differently from you was "behind", which is exactly the point. Consider the alternative, where you simply argue for why a certain threshold is the correct one for success, without casting a judgement on people who think differently than you. It doesn't even matter if the statement is objectively accurate; it's irrelevant and disparaging.

pg 14y ago

As for your other example (which is about bootstrapped companies, which is not even the topic of this thread), I'm not gratuitously introducing the concept of top technology companies as a way of disparaging the companies he lists. That concept was introduced in the grandparent: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2557078 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2557078 What sentence in that comment is false?

clarky07 14y ago
You said funding was necessary, he gave a list of 6 companies without funding that were hugely successful by any measuring stick that doesn't include Apple, certainly life changing FU money for the founders. You called them both outliers (maybe true, but it's not like it was just 1 company) and "not successful enough."

Gatsky 14y ago

The benefits of being a solo founder are pretty obvious (eg I can start now, I don't have to deal with another person or worry about equity etc) but the disadvantages are not very clear if you are just starting out. This is why balanced advice from experienced people is useful. You seem to be suggesting that PG's advice is at the very least creating bad vibes or perhaps even that he is trying to reshape reality for mercenary purposes. This is frankly a bit nuts considering how much carefully considered free help and advice PG gives out in his essays alone. PG's original point is sound. The OP's blog post could have said what it wanted to say without falsely attributing PG's or Techstars' motives to greed.