2 ms·

> "How do we convince that brilliant engineer that has the idea he's really passionate about, that can change the world, to start a startup and not go work as a

> "How do we convince that brilliant engineer that has the idea he's really passionate about, that can change the world, to start a startup and not go work as an engineer at a big company?" I like the thought behind it, but it seems a liiiitle bit ingenuous to say it like that because success usually constitutes being acquired later on by the supposed "big company" and VC's making a lot of money.

chadwickthebold 13y ago
Right. I wonder if Silicon Valley types will ever be able to move away from the faux-altruistic mindset and just acknowledge that they are interested in making more money than a single person could ever comfortably spend in 10 lifetimes. And that's not a bad thing! And maybe the world becomes a slightly better place in the process, but there's just such a disconnect right now between what they say and what they end up doing.
- rubiquity 13y ago
  Post of the Year right here. Prepare to be downvoted relentlessly for commiting Hacker News sacrilege[0]. 0 - http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- bfe 13y ago
  http://watsi.org http://watsi.org
- RKoutnik 13y ago
  To be fair, sama listed "It's not about the money" as SV lie #1: https://twitter.com/sama/status/453708825250381824 https://twitter.com/sama/status/453708825250381824
- arasmussen 13y ago
  I am interested in making more money than a single person could ever comfortably spend in 10 lifetimes.
  - keithwarren 13y ago
    +1
- EC1 13y ago
  I always tell people this straight up. I'm about the money, everything I do is about the money. I just really REALLY do not want to work at any company until I'm 50, life is seriously way too short. My circle of friends, most of us have already exited and are living the life, I'm trying to follow suit. The notion of retiring before 30 fuels me entirely.
  - arasmussen 13y ago
    Would love to reach out, shoot me an email.
- paulbaumgart 13y ago
  There are two types of altruism: 1. The desire to perform win-win, wealth-creating transactions. 2. The desire to redistribute wealth from yourself to people who ascribe greater utility to that wealth. I think what you're objecting to is Type 1 Altruists pretending to be Type 2 Altruists. Although I can't fault you for that, keep in mind that both types of altruism are utility-promoting, and that you can't have Type 2 without Type 1. :)
  - 001sky 13y ago
    Type (1) 'altruism' has various flavours. Two oligarchs colluding is one. Selling out to olligarchs may be another. Both of these seem to be increasing "perceptions" Of Silicon Valley's ~morality.
    - paulbaumgart 13y ago
      Yeah, "win-win" does not imply "wealth-creating". Negative externalities can cancel out the wealth creation or even push it into the negative. However, a lot of people who talk about wanting to "change the world" do genuinely want to make the world wealthier.
- elwell 13y ago
  And "changing the world" sounds great/positive, but it is often relatively neutral and sometimes negative.
johnrob 13y ago
If you are subtly pointing fingers, please point at "big company" and not the VC. They are the ones offering that engineer X today and 100X in the case of an acquisition.
wdewind 13y ago
Not only that, for many engineers they are actually going to be "changing the world" at a larger company with huge resources and scale to give them. It's just a different mindset, not better or worse. I wish we weren't so judgmental either way.
abtinf 13y ago
I don't normally comment on grammar issues, but I just can't get your use of the word "ingenuous" out of my head. My first thought was that you meant disingenuous. And that makes sense in the context of your sentence. But then I checked if ingenuous is even a word... and it is: "showing innocent or childlike simplicity and candidness" or " lacking craft or subtlety". And those sort of work in the context of the sentence too. So either it was a typo, a misunderstanding of english word formation, a brain fart, or an intentional use of an uncommon word by someone far more articulate than I.
sama 13y ago
to make a ton of money, you normally have to create a ton of value. the best way to do that is usually to change the world in some way, however small. most great founders want to both do something great and to make a lot of money.
- jlteran 13y ago
  I like your view on this. Although I would like to say that I'm not in it for the money, the truth is, many of us are in it for the money. It's that additional part of you wanting to do something great, building a product you are extremely passionate about, that far outweighs any want for money, as is in my case. I live by the philosophy that if you work hard on an idea that you're passionate about, and as you say, will create tons of value or change the world in some way, then success will definitely come knocking.
  - larrys 13y ago
    "many of us are in it for the money" I would guess that it's more than money though. It's also getting respect, attention, acquaintances, access and a pulpit that money buys. With that you can change the world. Sam has a pulpit (my comment wasn't directed at Sam but I just thought of this) that money can't buy. He was interviewed on CNN and has a ton of influence that he now yields as a result of being a figurehead. My guess is that the amount of money he makes is totally secondary at this stage and he wouldn't trade that away for anything. One last thing. It's what I call the "smoke up the ass" part. (Stick with me.) It's great to be in a position where your day is spent with people who are being nice to you because they want something from you or you are some kind of a gatekeeper for something they want. If you like that type of thing (and quite frankly nothing wrong if you do it's a drug free high) that goes way way beyond just having money.
- graycat 13y ago
  Sam, you're repeatedly making an absolutely huge, gigantic mistake. You are making this mistake every time you say "most", "normally", "usually". Huge. Because the world of ambitious, information technology (IT) start ups is necessarily looking for something exceptional which, necessarily has next to nothing to do with "most", "normally", or "usually". What happened in the past, that is empirical probabilities, even for the successful start ups, is next to irrelevant for what will be powerful, valuable, and new tomorrow. Did I mention "new"? New can very much mean different and not part of most, what is normal, or what is usual. Or, take a famous seccess story, e.g., Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, Google, Facebook, etc., review the environment when they were getting started, and, then, find for each of those successful companies how much they looked like most, normal, or usual. Answer: Not much, and where they were "most", etc., it was essentially irrelevant. Or, the SR-71 was nothing like most, normal, or usual. So, how to evaluate the project? Sure: The evaluation was no doubt quite technical and thorough but also quite accurate. No doubt in this evaluation most, normal, and usual played no role. Sam, looking at most, normal, and usual in the past will tell you next to nothing about what will be successful in the future; still for a wide class of start ups, there are ways to tell. Sam, more simply, clearly you are looking at most, normal, and usual as guidance for what should look for or do for the future, but, especially for the criteria you are considering, this is poor and will throw out a larger fraction of good babies than bath water.
dude_abides 13y ago
To be fair to big companies, it is quite possible for the brilliant engineer with an idea that he's passionate about, to change the world while working for a big company. Obvious examples that come to mind - Jeff Dean, Sanjay Ghemawat.
- harryh 13y ago
  Google wasn't a big company when Jeff & Sanjay started there.
  - dude_abides 13y ago
    Sure, but Yahoo was in 2005 when Doug Cutting started working on Hadoop there.

chadwickthebold 13y ago

Right. I wonder if Silicon Valley types will ever be able to move away from the faux-altruistic mindset and just acknowledge that they are interested in making more money than a single person could ever comfortably spend in 10 lifetimes. And that's not a bad thing! And maybe the world becomes a slightly better place in the process, but there's just such a disconnect right now between what they say and what they end up doing.

rubiquity 13y ago
Post of the Year right here. Prepare to be downvoted relentlessly for commiting Hacker News sacrilege[0]. 0 - http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
bfe 13y ago
http://watsi.org http://watsi.org
RKoutnik 13y ago
To be fair, sama listed "It's not about the money" as SV lie #1: https://twitter.com/sama/status/453708825250381824 https://twitter.com/sama/status/453708825250381824
arasmussen 13y ago
I am interested in making more money than a single person could ever comfortably spend in 10 lifetimes.
- keithwarren 13y ago
  +1
EC1 13y ago
I always tell people this straight up. I'm about the money, everything I do is about the money. I just really REALLY do not want to work at any company until I'm 50, life is seriously way too short. My circle of friends, most of us have already exited and are living the life, I'm trying to follow suit. The notion of retiring before 30 fuels me entirely.
- arasmussen 13y ago
  Would love to reach out, shoot me an email.
paulbaumgart 13y ago
There are two types of altruism: 1. The desire to perform win-win, wealth-creating transactions. 2. The desire to redistribute wealth from yourself to people who ascribe greater utility to that wealth. I think what you're objecting to is Type 1 Altruists pretending to be Type 2 Altruists. Although I can't fault you for that, keep in mind that both types of altruism are utility-promoting, and that you can't have Type 2 without Type 1. :)
- 001sky 13y ago
  Type (1) 'altruism' has various flavours. Two oligarchs colluding is one. Selling out to olligarchs may be another. Both of these seem to be increasing "perceptions" Of Silicon Valley's ~morality.
  - paulbaumgart 13y ago
    Yeah, "win-win" does not imply "wealth-creating". Negative externalities can cancel out the wealth creation or even push it into the negative. However, a lot of people who talk about wanting to "change the world" do genuinely want to make the world wealthier.
elwell 13y ago
And "changing the world" sounds great/positive, but it is often relatively neutral and sometimes negative.

johnrob 13y ago

If you are subtly pointing fingers, please point at "big company" and not the VC. They are the ones offering that engineer X today and 100X in the case of an acquisition.

wdewind 13y ago

Not only that, for many engineers they are actually going to be "changing the world" at a larger company with huge resources and scale to give them. It's just a different mindset, not better or worse. I wish we weren't so judgmental either way.

abtinf 13y ago

I don't normally comment on grammar issues, but I just can't get your use of the word "ingenuous" out of my head. My first thought was that you meant disingenuous. And that makes sense in the context of your sentence. But then I checked if ingenuous is even a word... and it is: "showing innocent or childlike simplicity and candidness" or " lacking craft or subtlety". And those sort of work in the context of the sentence too. So either it was a typo, a misunderstanding of english word formation, a brain fart, or an intentional use of an uncommon word by someone far more articulate than I.

sama 13y ago

to make a ton of money, you normally have to create a ton of value. the best way to do that is usually to change the world in some way, however small. most great founders want to both do something great and to make a lot of money.

jlteran 13y ago
I like your view on this. Although I would like to say that I'm not in it for the money, the truth is, many of us are in it for the money. It's that additional part of you wanting to do something great, building a product you are extremely passionate about, that far outweighs any want for money, as is in my case. I live by the philosophy that if you work hard on an idea that you're passionate about, and as you say, will create tons of value or change the world in some way, then success will definitely come knocking.
- larrys 13y ago
  "many of us are in it for the money" I would guess that it's more than money though. It's also getting respect, attention, acquaintances, access and a pulpit that money buys. With that you can change the world. Sam has a pulpit (my comment wasn't directed at Sam but I just thought of this) that money can't buy. He was interviewed on CNN and has a ton of influence that he now yields as a result of being a figurehead. My guess is that the amount of money he makes is totally secondary at this stage and he wouldn't trade that away for anything. One last thing. It's what I call the "smoke up the ass" part. (Stick with me.) It's great to be in a position where your day is spent with people who are being nice to you because they want something from you or you are some kind of a gatekeeper for something they want. If you like that type of thing (and quite frankly nothing wrong if you do it's a drug free high) that goes way way beyond just having money.
graycat 13y ago
Sam, you're repeatedly making an absolutely huge, gigantic mistake. You are making this mistake every time you say "most", "normally", "usually". Huge. Because the world of ambitious, information technology (IT) start ups is necessarily looking for something exceptional which, necessarily has next to nothing to do with "most", "normally", or "usually". What happened in the past, that is empirical probabilities, even for the successful start ups, is next to irrelevant for what will be powerful, valuable, and new tomorrow. Did I mention "new"? New can very much mean different and not part of most, what is normal, or what is usual. Or, take a famous seccess story, e.g., Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, Google, Facebook, etc., review the environment when they were getting started, and, then, find for each of those successful companies how much they looked like most, normal, or usual. Answer: Not much, and where they were "most", etc., it was essentially irrelevant. Or, the SR-71 was nothing like most, normal, or usual. So, how to evaluate the project? Sure: The evaluation was no doubt quite technical and thorough but also quite accurate. No doubt in this evaluation most, normal, and usual played no role. Sam, looking at most, normal, and usual in the past will tell you next to nothing about what will be successful in the future; still for a wide class of start ups, there are ways to tell. Sam, more simply, clearly you are looking at most, normal, and usual as guidance for what should look for or do for the future, but, especially for the criteria you are considering, this is poor and will throw out a larger fraction of good babies than bath water.

dude_abides 13y ago

To be fair to big companies, it is quite possible for the brilliant engineer with an idea that he's passionate about, to change the world while working for a big company. Obvious examples that come to mind - Jeff Dean, Sanjay Ghemawat.

harryh 13y ago
Google wasn't a big company when Jeff & Sanjay started there.
- dude_abides 13y ago
  Sure, but Yahoo was in 2005 when Doug Cutting started working on Hadoop there.