4 ms·

Entrepreneurshit. The Blog Post on What It’s Really Like.

8 points by gedrap 13y ago

graycat 13y ago
Mark does a lot of that. First, on being an 'entrepreneur', the US is awash, by the millions, in successful entrepreneurs, with only a small fraction with an MBA or knowing what BizDev is. E.g., once late on a Thursday I needed an electrician, plugged in my emergency electric generator, very much wanted to get the work done on Friday and not have to wait until Monday, Tuesday, etc., stayed up nearly until dawn on Friday getting phone numbers of local electricians and leaving messages, got back only a few calls, one, just after dawn just leaving to play golf, with a reference to an electrician who lived a few streets over but didn't have his name in any place easy to find, called him, got him, and got the work done. That electrician was actually doing okay as an entrepreneur -- staying busy enough, nice house, wife at home, truck, assistant, and essentially none of the problems Suster described. The situation is similar for millions of Main Street entrepreneurs all across the US. If an information technology entrepreneur can do better, okay, but mostly he shouldn't have to do worse. Second, Suster, in his list of what it takes to be a successful entrepreneur, leaves out some things that, when left out, can explain why the items on his list are so ugly. An example is from WWII: The Allies won against Rommel in North Africa. From the attributes in Suster's list? Maybe in part, but Suster left out a crucial point: Something especially effective. What was that against Rommel? Sure, most of Rommel's supplies went to the bottom of the Mediterranean. Why? Because the English, maybe with Turing, broke a German code so that the Allies knew when the German supply ships were headed for Rommel. The Allies were so careful with the information that they didn't just attack the ships and, instead, before attacking the ship made sure to fly a plane over the ship to let the German's think that reconnaissance had detected the ship and not something else. Eventually Rommel was convinced that there was a security leak in the Italians. There were other WWII examples, especially the atomic bomb. Thankfully for US national security, the US DoD has, now for 70+ years, been the unique, world class, grand champion of getting some things that are "especially effective" -- GPS, stealth, reconnaissance satellites, the SR-71, etc. What Suster concentrates on has feet locked into concrete making sure not to do anything "especially effective" as in those examples. Suster is making a fundamental mistake: He is looking for things that are exceptionally good but trying to get such things mostly just via ordinary 'true-grit' and without concentrating on things that are "especially effective".

8 points by gedrap 13y ago

Mark does a lot of that. First, on being an 'entrepreneur', the US is awash, by the millions, in successful entrepreneurs, with only a small fraction with an MBA or knowing what BizDev is. E.g., once late on a Thursday I needed an electrician, plugged in my emergency electric generator, very much wanted to get the work done on Friday and not have to wait until Monday, Tuesday, etc., stayed up nearly until dawn on Friday getting phone numbers of local electricians and leaving messages, got back only a few calls, one, just after dawn just leaving to play golf, with a reference to an electrician who lived a few streets over but didn't have his name in any place easy to find, called him, got him, and got the work done. That electrician was actually doing okay as an entrepreneur -- staying busy enough, nice house, wife at home, truck, assistant, and essentially none of the problems Suster described. The situation is similar for millions of Main Street entrepreneurs all across the US. If an information technology entrepreneur can do better, okay, but mostly he shouldn't have to do worse. Second, Suster, in his list of what it takes to be a successful entrepreneur, leaves out some things that, when left out, can explain why the items on his list are so ugly. An example is from WWII: The Allies won against Rommel in North Africa. From the attributes in Suster's list? Maybe in part, but Suster left out a crucial point: Something especially effective. What was that against Rommel? Sure, most of Rommel's supplies went to the bottom of the Mediterranean. Why? Because the English, maybe with Turing, broke a German code so that the Allies knew when the German supply ships were headed for Rommel. The Allies were so careful with the information that they didn't just attack the ships and, instead, before attacking the ship made sure to fly a plane over the ship to let the German's think that reconnaissance had detected the ship and not something else. Eventually Rommel was convinced that there was a security leak in the Italians. There were other WWII examples, especially the atomic bomb. Thankfully for US national security, the US DoD has, now for 70+ years, been the unique, world class, grand champion of getting some things that are "especially effective" -- GPS, stealth, reconnaissance satellites, the SR-71, etc. What Suster concentrates on has feet locked into concrete making sure not to do anything "especially effective" as in those examples. Suster is making a fundamental mistake: He is looking for things that are exceptionally good but trying to get such things mostly just via ordinary 'true-grit' and without concentrating on things that are "especially effective".