3 ms·

I take issue with a lot of these, but a bunch of other commenters have covered most of them. This: >"Assume the market is efficient and valuable ideas will be

I take issue with a lot of these, but a bunch of other commenters have covered most of them. This: >"Assume the market is efficient and valuable ideas will be discovered by multiple teams nearly instantaneously." That's just irresponsible and unrealistic advice. Splitting stock evenly and governing yourself as a "final say" CEO seems a bit self-contradictory, to say nothing of whether or not you should be a "final say" CEO in a startup (debatable). This is also deplorable: >"If it doesn’t augment the human condition for a huge number of people in a meaningful way, it’s not worth doing." Yeah, it's wonderful to "augment the human condition...", but don't be a condescending prick about it. Things are perfectly worth doing even if they don't impact a large number of people. The trouble with this is, Slava inherently claims superiority to his audience when he declares (not suggest, declares) that things are not worth doing just because they aren't up to his self-defined standard of ambition. Such a statement is not for him to make; it wouldn't sound right coming straight out of one of Paul Graham's essays, so on what authority does he get to make this statement?

gruseom 13y ago
I see nothing condescending there. "Augment the human condition" means making someone's life better. "Huge number of people" means going after big markets. "Not worth doing" means not worth doing as a startup—it might be well worth doing in some other context, and that's clearly not the scope of this post.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  Perhaps I worded that comment too harshly. However, that's a distinction you're making, gruesom. The OP doesn't say it's not worth doing as a startup, he says it's not worth doing in general. There's no qualifier. Had there been, I wouldn't take the same issue with it. This is something other commenters have pointed out down and upthread as well.
  - gruseom 13y ago
    "He says it's not worth doing in general." He did not. It's you who read that in and became indignant at it. "There's no qualifier." Certainly there is—the title of the post. Plus its whole context, which is obviously that of a classic Silicon Valley venture-funded startup. Look at it this way. When people in this context say "You should go after a big market", do they mean that anyone going after a small market is an inferior person? Of course not. What they mean is that if you're going for a classic high-growth startup, you'll need a market big enough to support that. They're communicating a distilled lesson about startups, not the world in general. Same with Slava's post.
    - dylangs1030 13y ago
      You know, I guess you're right. I was off base with this comment - I tried to be more neutral and less critical in my top level comment to pg. But yeah, I concede. I see your point.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

gruseom 13y ago

I see nothing condescending there. "Augment the human condition" means making someone's life better. "Huge number of people" means going after big markets. "Not worth doing" means not worth doing as a startup—it might be well worth doing in some other context, and that's clearly not the scope of this post.

dylangs1030 13y ago
Perhaps I worded that comment too harshly. However, that's a distinction you're making, gruesom. The OP doesn't say it's not worth doing as a startup, he says it's not worth doing in general. There's no qualifier. Had there been, I wouldn't take the same issue with it. This is something other commenters have pointed out down and upthread as well.
- gruseom 13y ago
  "He says it's not worth doing in general." He did not. It's you who read that in and became indignant at it. "There's no qualifier." Certainly there is—the title of the post. Plus its whole context, which is obviously that of a classic Silicon Valley venture-funded startup. Look at it this way. When people in this context say "You should go after a big market", do they mean that anyone going after a small market is an inferior person? Of course not. What they mean is that if you're going for a classic high-growth startup, you'll need a market big enough to support that. They're communicating a distilled lesson about startups, not the world in general. Same with Slava's post.
  - dylangs1030 13y ago
    You know, I guess you're right. I was off base with this comment - I tried to be more neutral and less critical in my top level comment to pg. But yeah, I concede. I see your point.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]