6 ms·

But the author isn't smearing ZenPayroll. He's pointing out that even if the company is world-changing, the employee has zero basis for making that judgment and

But the author isn't smearing ZenPayroll. He's pointing out that even if the company is world-changing, the employee has zero basis for making that judgment and is buying into the mythos for other reasons. The comments about that investor show the same obliviousness from a different angle -- the guy was too busy partying with random celebrities to know what companies Google Ventures was even invested in.

argonaut 13y ago
> the guy was too busy partying with random celebrities to know what companies Google Ventures was even invested in. Where was it shown that was the case? That's just your interpretation. In fact, that's just your interpretation of the author's interpretation of the author's friend's interpretation. You list that out and the ridiculousness of the article becomes evident. In fact, I'm willing to bet that was the author's goal. To make you think negatively of this particular VC by inserting random innuendos. I'd certainly agree that the engineer does not know anything about payroll. And that doesn't matter. He's there to build out technology. Presumably the people who started the company are experts in payroll systems. If the author had met a wantrapreneur who had never worked a day in his/her life and wanted to start a payroll company, that would be the absurd situation the author is clearly looking for.
- bm1362 13y ago
  I think you're reading too much into the Miley Cyrus thing. It was just a strange anecdote that added character to the partner.
  - argonaut 13y ago
    My point is that the entire article is filled with this collection of very strange anecdotes.
- trevelyan 13y ago
  > Where was it shown that was the case? The investment fell through when Google Ventures claimed it had a conflicting investment. So the most charitable reading is that the investor was clueless, since if he was aware of the conflict-of-interest from the start that would imply he was simply trolling the founders.
  - argonaut 13y ago
    The ironic thing is that it's considered common knowledge that VCs won't actually tell you the truth about why they're turning you down (because they don't want to burn bridges - they try to reject you without actually saying they don't like you). So it says more about the naivete of the author if he is taking the VC's stated reason for rejection at face value than it says about the VC himself. And no, that's not actually the most charitable reading. The most charitable reading is that the investor actually did not know about the competitor. What you stated is like saying "A guy tripped over a rock. The most charitable reading is that he's clumsy," when in fact the most charitable reading is that the guy didn't see the rock.
    - trevelyan 13y ago
      So... the most charitable reading is exactly the one I made above, when I suggested the investor was simply ignorant of the competition ("the guy was too busy partying with random celebrities to know what companies Google Ventures was even invested in")? Of course it is possible he just led them on. I don't personally think that as likely, but given that the underlying thesis of the essay is that the funding/business cycle in Silicon Valley encourages delusional thinking among the young and naive, I don't see how the possibility detracts from the point of the essay....
      - argonaut 12y ago
        My disagreement with your point is that you use the word clueless, when that is unwarranted. I revise my point. The most charitable reading is that the investor did not like the company, and gave the founders a polite rejection.

argonaut 13y ago

> the guy was too busy partying with random celebrities to know what companies Google Ventures was even invested in. Where was it shown that was the case? That's just your interpretation. In fact, that's just your interpretation of the author's interpretation of the author's friend's interpretation. You list that out and the ridiculousness of the article becomes evident. In fact, I'm willing to bet that was the author's goal. To make you think negatively of this particular VC by inserting random innuendos. I'd certainly agree that the engineer does not know anything about payroll. And that doesn't matter. He's there to build out technology. Presumably the people who started the company are experts in payroll systems. If the author had met a wantrapreneur who had never worked a day in his/her life and wanted to start a payroll company, that would be the absurd situation the author is clearly looking for.

bm1362 13y ago
I think you're reading too much into the Miley Cyrus thing. It was just a strange anecdote that added character to the partner.
- argonaut 13y ago
  My point is that the entire article is filled with this collection of very strange anecdotes.
trevelyan 13y ago
> Where was it shown that was the case? The investment fell through when Google Ventures claimed it had a conflicting investment. So the most charitable reading is that the investor was clueless, since if he was aware of the conflict-of-interest from the start that would imply he was simply trolling the founders.
- argonaut 13y ago
  The ironic thing is that it's considered common knowledge that VCs won't actually tell you the truth about why they're turning you down (because they don't want to burn bridges - they try to reject you without actually saying they don't like you). So it says more about the naivete of the author if he is taking the VC's stated reason for rejection at face value than it says about the VC himself. And no, that's not actually the most charitable reading. The most charitable reading is that the investor actually did not know about the competitor. What you stated is like saying "A guy tripped over a rock. The most charitable reading is that he's clumsy," when in fact the most charitable reading is that the guy didn't see the rock.
  - trevelyan 13y ago
    So... the most charitable reading is exactly the one I made above, when I suggested the investor was simply ignorant of the competition ("the guy was too busy partying with random celebrities to know what companies Google Ventures was even invested in")? Of course it is possible he just led them on. I don't personally think that as likely, but given that the underlying thesis of the essay is that the funding/business cycle in Silicon Valley encourages delusional thinking among the young and naive, I don't see how the possibility detracts from the point of the essay....
    - argonaut 12y ago
      My disagreement with your point is that you use the word clueless, when that is unwarranted. I revise my point. The most charitable reading is that the investor did not like the company, and gave the founders a polite rejection.