3 ms·

The idea that Google's 10,000th programmer makes a bigger impact on the world than a tech founder is dubious at best. The marginal contribution of an additiona

by mikekij 13y ago

The idea that Google's 10,000th programmer makes a bigger impact on the world than a tech founder is dubious at best. The marginal contribution of an additional Google programmer is almost zero. Google can most definitely do with 9,999 programmers the same things they can do with 10,000. That doesn't mean that working at Google means you won't contribute to the world. It just means your chances of doing something meaningful at a startup are much, much higher.

xyzelement 13y ago
Sure. But the impact of the AVERAGE startup is zero.
- bliti 13y ago
  Can it really be zero? I mean, the average startup might not manage to break even. But the insight, experience, and knowledge gained should not be understated. Plus startups have to buy hosting, equipment, domains, etc. They do not generate profits, but they do help keep other businesses running. By doing so, they do contribute towards meaningful impact. It might not be world changing, but might be life improving for a small set of people. Reason that the people who get paid from the money paid by startups to cover operation costs is used to keep a roof over their head, put food on the table, send their children to school, etc. I could also argue that failed startups help others by weeding out businesses plans/ideas that might not exactly work (at a given moment in time/space). Look at the many failed startups from the dotcom bubble. There are plans/ideas from that era that will not approached by the current batch of startup entrepreneurs. All because they have the historical data/evidence from the past bubble.
- mithras 13y ago
  Technically I think you mean the impact of the median startup is zero.
  - EdwardDiego 13y ago
    That implies that 50% of startups have a negative impact, how would you define one?
    - mithras 13y ago
      It implies at least 50% of the startups have no impact at all. Which I think is reasonable to say.

by mikekij 13y ago

xyzelement 13y ago

Sure. But the impact of the AVERAGE startup is zero.

bliti 13y ago
Can it really be zero? I mean, the average startup might not manage to break even. But the insight, experience, and knowledge gained should not be understated. Plus startups have to buy hosting, equipment, domains, etc. They do not generate profits, but they do help keep other businesses running. By doing so, they do contribute towards meaningful impact. It might not be world changing, but might be life improving for a small set of people. Reason that the people who get paid from the money paid by startups to cover operation costs is used to keep a roof over their head, put food on the table, send their children to school, etc. I could also argue that failed startups help others by weeding out businesses plans/ideas that might not exactly work (at a given moment in time/space). Look at the many failed startups from the dotcom bubble. There are plans/ideas from that era that will not approached by the current batch of startup entrepreneurs. All because they have the historical data/evidence from the past bubble.
mithras 13y ago
Technically I think you mean the impact of the median startup is zero.
- EdwardDiego 13y ago
  That implies that 50% of startups have a negative impact, how would you define one?
  - mithras 13y ago
    It implies at least 50% of the startups have no impact at all. Which I think is reasonable to say.