5 ms·

One important part of the story is in the very beginning: The founder’s motivation. To become wealthy. You see this in the startup world a lot. Founders with 5

One important part of the story is in the very beginning: The founder’s motivation. To become wealthy. You see this in the startup world a lot. Founders with 5+ failed startups in different sectors, because said founder picked the fields mainly by doing some market analysis. Not domain expertise. There’s then a big mismatch between what the founder thinks is possible, and what the domain expert thinks is possible. The defense is of course that some people can do that - Musk did it, so why not? Another defense is that blindingly naïve optimism is sometimes needed to move the needle, as the concept “that can’t be done” simply doesn’t exist to some people. I’ve sat through some pitches like that, where it is very obvious that the founder/CEO has limited knowledge and expertise in what they’re pitching, where the product is limited, but their enthusiasm is off the charts. EDIT: The very latest happened only a couple of weeks ago. A startup had reached out to my employer as they’re developing a platform in our domain. Higher ups liked what they’d seen, enough to arrange a real meeting. Startup is only 3 months old, and the moment I opened the platform I recognized a vibecoded (likely using clause) platform identical to almost all other launched on a daily basis. So I probed a bit about data sources, serious questions regarding security, etc. but the guy was pretty fluent in consultant (turns out he had worked as a management consultant before launching), and the CTO was just nodding along. In the end they wanted our data, and promised the moon on features - but as mentioned, I’m sure the whole product was entirely vibecoded.

smallnix 3mo ago
> I’ve sat through some pitches like that, where it is very obvious that the founder/CEO has limited knowledge and expertise in what they’re pitching, where the product is limited, but their enthusiasm is off the charts. And for all the talk of investing into people, what was your opinion?
- lionkor 3mo ago
  Not OP, but overconfidence is not a quality I would invest in.
  - sph 3mo ago
    You must not be from California
- latexr 3mo ago
  Would you invest in a person with limited knowledge and expertise just because they’re enthusiastic? Might as well hire a literal clown; all the enthusiasm you might want and way cheaper.
  - HumanOstrich 3mo ago
    Now this is the kind of honest snark I would hire.
teiferer 3mo ago
> The defense is of course that some people can do that - Musk did it, so why not? If you think that Musk did his endeavors in order to become rich, you are likely mistaken.
- trinari 3mo ago
  What drives him then? Power?
  - philipallstar 3mo ago
    Going to Mars.
    - stickfigure 3mo ago
      I'm convinced this is a schtick. Not that he doesn't genuinely want that, but it's not the root motivation. I suspect it's something more like wanting to be perceived as a real-world Tony Stark. The cave rescue capsule episode is illustrative. The guy likes attention.
      - paytonjjones 3mo ago
        > wanting to be perceived as a real-world Tony Stark The thing is, he _had_ this. He had all of Reddit worshipping him. He had the press. He had the tech-internet. Then he knowingly blew it all up overnight to ally with Trump. I think the reasons why are pretty clear: a son-who-loves-me became a daughter-who-despises-me and his companies got repeatedly hamstrung by California Democrats. But if his root motivation was truly just approval, he would have taken it on the chin and accepted slower growth of his other ambitions. So it's a little more complicated than that.
        otterley 3mo ago
        > Then he knowingly blew it all up overnight to ally with Trump. He blew it up years before that with his "pedo guy" false accusation drama.
thih9 3mo ago
> they wanted our data, and promised the moon on features I know a company that fits this so well that I almost want to check the names. It's older than 3 months though.
- kekqqq 3mo ago
  I also know a company that fits this very well. I wonder how many such companies are out there.
  - thih9 3mo ago
    In a one electron universe[1] it might actually be the same company (with a very productive sales team). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
ErroneousBosh 3mo ago
> Founders with 5+ failed startups in different sectors, because said founder picked the fields mainly by doing some market analysis. Not domain expertise. You mean the moment when someone says "It's Facebook but for dogs! That should be easy, right? I had the idea, that's the hard bit, you just need to write it!"
- search_facility 3mo ago
  ... Today its "Claude just needs to write it" and the "hard part" is the prompt :)
ashishb 3mo ago
Listen to any on the Elon Musk interviews, he knows more technical intricacies of his 1000+ employee companies than your average startup founder with 10 employees.
- FireBeyond 3mo ago
  Or can sound like it. Like when he talked on an investor call about one of the myriad reasons for vision only: “we are good with rain and fog because our cameras do photon counting and can account for it”. Except… they don’t. You need a different type of camera - one not optimized for “vision” (in the sense of “object discernment”) - one Teslas do not have. And even if they did, to count photons you need an enclosed space in front of your lens, not the … open road. Which is annoying: Teslas haven’t had that, and could never have that but he goes on an investor call and openly lies about it, and doesn’t get called out. It’s not even an “aspirational statement” it’s a lie that goes against the laws of physics. He knows a lot, and he also knows enough to be able to be confidently wrong and pass the bullshit meter of people who don’t know any better. They are not the same thing.
Georgelemental 3mo ago
> The defense is of course that some people can do that - Musk did it, so why not? Nope. Musk has been obsessed with rockets and electric cars, specifically, for a very long time
overgard 3mo ago
Musk strikes me as a guy that keeps succeeding despite his bad ideas because the system is so rigged that getting wealthy off one good bet can sustain you forever. I mean, his track record this entire decade is proposterously stupid (cybertruck, twitter, everything he says on twitter, the CSAM and deepfake creation engine known as grok, DOGE, etc.). When his companies succeed, its mostly because the people he's hired treat him like a toddler they need to appease while keeping him out of the important things. To me he's not a positive example, he's an embarassment that demonstrates that being rich does not require insight or intelligence.
- mlacks 3mo ago
  Why is it that people focus on the negatives. I'm not going to pick apart the whole comment but World's first self-landing rocket ship and best selling electric car in the world are not figments of a "system is rigged that getting wealthy off one good bet can sustain you forever".
  - overgard 3mo ago
    I focus on the negatives because they're so massive. Elon didn't even start Tesla, he was an investor that forced the founder out. I'll concede that SpaceX is a little better, but even then a lot of his ideas are profoundly stupid (while I think colonizing the solar system is worthwhile, doing it on Mars is very dumb. You'd need to build underground bunkers so people don't die of cancer from radiation, and there aren't that many useful natural resources there. The moon is much more useful from a practical standpoint of creating easier access to the rest of the solar system, and Titan makes a lot more sense for a sustainable colony. But Elon is a toddler so he just went "Mars!!") Lets throw in a few more of Elon's failures, this time lets focus on the ones that are outright dangerous or killing people! - In an accident, the Cybertruck has frequently trapped people inside the vehicle and caused them to burn to death when the batteries catch fire because they hid the manual release on the doors for aesthetic reasons, so people couldn't get out. Also the unbreakable glass means that people spent their final moments desperately trying to smash an unbreakable window while burning to death. People have died from this! It was totally predictable and preventable! https://www.ktvu.com/news/parents-woman-killed-cybertruck-crash-allege-dangerous-door-design-prevented-her-esape https://www.ktvu.com/news/parents-woman-killed-cybertruck-cr... - Fully self driving. Hasn't happened, and a lot of the danger is because he wanted to cheap out on lidar and brashly overpromised on its capabilities. Lets also focus on some of the funny ones that came from his need for validation, like needing people to think he's a great gamer: https://www.theguardian.com/games/2025/jan/20/elon-musk-stands-accused-of-pretending-to-be-good-at-video-games-the-irony-is-delicious https://www.theguardian.com/games/2025/jan/20/elon-musk-stan... (why would any adult not involved in E-Sports even want to convince their peers they're great at gaming? Like, who cares?!) Even when he has a good idea like Starlink he ruins it by awful about it (shutting it off for entities he disagrees with). This guy should not be anyone's hero.
aryehof 3mo ago
> pretty fluent in consultant Thanks, gave me a chuckle. One to remember.
pseudohadamard 3mo ago
> The founder’s motivation. To become wealthy. Or, if they're an engineer, to design cool products while not having the faintest idea of how to run a business and manage people. Ran into far more of those than get-rich-quick types. Having said that, I was also lucky enough to work for a company where the founder had a science degree but not in the field he was currently working in, was really good at sales, and recognised that others knew a lot more about the field than he did and was willing to listen to them. One of the lead tech guys could literally say to him "this is a stupid idea" and the idea would get changed. They muddled along for some years until he found the right people to run things, and have been doing pretty well ever since. Last I checked it was still a good place to work for.

smallnix 3mo ago

> I’ve sat through some pitches like that, where it is very obvious that the founder/CEO has limited knowledge and expertise in what they’re pitching, where the product is limited, but their enthusiasm is off the charts. And for all the talk of investing into people, what was your opinion?

lionkor 3mo ago
Not OP, but overconfidence is not a quality I would invest in.
- sph 3mo ago
  You must not be from California
latexr 3mo ago
Would you invest in a person with limited knowledge and expertise just because they’re enthusiastic? Might as well hire a literal clown; all the enthusiasm you might want and way cheaper.
- HumanOstrich 3mo ago
  Now this is the kind of honest snark I would hire.

teiferer 3mo ago

> The defense is of course that some people can do that - Musk did it, so why not? If you think that Musk did his endeavors in order to become rich, you are likely mistaken.

trinari 3mo ago
What drives him then? Power?
- philipallstar 3mo ago
  Going to Mars.
  - stickfigure 3mo ago
    I'm convinced this is a schtick. Not that he doesn't genuinely want that, but it's not the root motivation. I suspect it's something more like wanting to be perceived as a real-world Tony Stark. The cave rescue capsule episode is illustrative. The guy likes attention.
    - paytonjjones 3mo ago
      > wanting to be perceived as a real-world Tony Stark The thing is, he _had_ this. He had all of Reddit worshipping him. He had the press. He had the tech-internet. Then he knowingly blew it all up overnight to ally with Trump. I think the reasons why are pretty clear: a son-who-loves-me became a daughter-who-despises-me and his companies got repeatedly hamstrung by California Democrats. But if his root motivation was truly just approval, he would have taken it on the chin and accepted slower growth of his other ambitions. So it's a little more complicated than that.
      - otterley 3mo ago
        > Then he knowingly blew it all up overnight to ally with Trump. He blew it up years before that with his "pedo guy" false accusation drama.

thih9 3mo ago

> they wanted our data, and promised the moon on features I know a company that fits this so well that I almost want to check the names. It's older than 3 months though.

kekqqq 3mo ago
I also know a company that fits this very well. I wonder how many such companies are out there.
- thih9 3mo ago
  In a one electron universe[1] it might actually be the same company (with a very productive sales team). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

ErroneousBosh 3mo ago

> Founders with 5+ failed startups in different sectors, because said founder picked the fields mainly by doing some market analysis. Not domain expertise. You mean the moment when someone says "It's Facebook but for dogs! That should be easy, right? I had the idea, that's the hard bit, you just need to write it!"

search_facility 3mo ago
... Today its "Claude just needs to write it" and the "hard part" is the prompt :)

ashishb 3mo ago

Listen to any on the Elon Musk interviews, he knows more technical intricacies of his 1000+ employee companies than your average startup founder with 10 employees.

FireBeyond 3mo ago
Or can sound like it. Like when he talked on an investor call about one of the myriad reasons for vision only: “we are good with rain and fog because our cameras do photon counting and can account for it”. Except… they don’t. You need a different type of camera - one not optimized for “vision” (in the sense of “object discernment”) - one Teslas do not have. And even if they did, to count photons you need an enclosed space in front of your lens, not the … open road. Which is annoying: Teslas haven’t had that, and could never have that but he goes on an investor call and openly lies about it, and doesn’t get called out. It’s not even an “aspirational statement” it’s a lie that goes against the laws of physics. He knows a lot, and he also knows enough to be able to be confidently wrong and pass the bullshit meter of people who don’t know any better. They are not the same thing.

Georgelemental 3mo ago

> The defense is of course that some people can do that - Musk did it, so why not? Nope. Musk has been obsessed with rockets and electric cars, specifically, for a very long time

overgard 3mo ago

Musk strikes me as a guy that keeps succeeding despite his bad ideas because the system is so rigged that getting wealthy off one good bet can sustain you forever. I mean, his track record this entire decade is proposterously stupid (cybertruck, twitter, everything he says on twitter, the CSAM and deepfake creation engine known as grok, DOGE, etc.). When his companies succeed, its mostly because the people he's hired treat him like a toddler they need to appease while keeping him out of the important things. To me he's not a positive example, he's an embarassment that demonstrates that being rich does not require insight or intelligence.

mlacks 3mo ago
Why is it that people focus on the negatives. I'm not going to pick apart the whole comment but World's first self-landing rocket ship and best selling electric car in the world are not figments of a "system is rigged that getting wealthy off one good bet can sustain you forever".
- overgard 3mo ago
  I focus on the negatives because they're so massive. Elon didn't even start Tesla, he was an investor that forced the founder out. I'll concede that SpaceX is a little better, but even then a lot of his ideas are profoundly stupid (while I think colonizing the solar system is worthwhile, doing it on Mars is very dumb. You'd need to build underground bunkers so people don't die of cancer from radiation, and there aren't that many useful natural resources there. The moon is much more useful from a practical standpoint of creating easier access to the rest of the solar system, and Titan makes a lot more sense for a sustainable colony. But Elon is a toddler so he just went "Mars!!") Lets throw in a few more of Elon's failures, this time lets focus on the ones that are outright dangerous or killing people! - In an accident, the Cybertruck has frequently trapped people inside the vehicle and caused them to burn to death when the batteries catch fire because they hid the manual release on the doors for aesthetic reasons, so people couldn't get out. Also the unbreakable glass means that people spent their final moments desperately trying to smash an unbreakable window while burning to death. People have died from this! It was totally predictable and preventable! https://www.ktvu.com/news/parents-woman-killed-cybertruck-crash-allege-dangerous-door-design-prevented-her-esape https://www.ktvu.com/news/parents-woman-killed-cybertruck-cr... - Fully self driving. Hasn't happened, and a lot of the danger is because he wanted to cheap out on lidar and brashly overpromised on its capabilities. Lets also focus on some of the funny ones that came from his need for validation, like needing people to think he's a great gamer: https://www.theguardian.com/games/2025/jan/20/elon-musk-stands-accused-of-pretending-to-be-good-at-video-games-the-irony-is-delicious https://www.theguardian.com/games/2025/jan/20/elon-musk-stan... (why would any adult not involved in E-Sports even want to convince their peers they're great at gaming? Like, who cares?!) Even when he has a good idea like Starlink he ruins it by awful about it (shutting it off for entities he disagrees with). This guy should not be anyone's hero.

aryehof 3mo ago

> pretty fluent in consultant Thanks, gave me a chuckle. One to remember.

pseudohadamard 3mo ago

> The founder’s motivation. To become wealthy. Or, if they're an engineer, to design cool products while not having the faintest idea of how to run a business and manage people. Ran into far more of those than get-rich-quick types. Having said that, I was also lucky enough to work for a company where the founder had a science degree but not in the field he was currently working in, was really good at sales, and recognised that others knew a lot more about the field than he did and was willing to listen to them. One of the lead tech guys could literally say to him "this is a stupid idea" and the idea would get changed. They muddled along for some years until he found the right people to run things, and have been doing pretty well ever since. Last I checked it was still a good place to work for.