csallen

7 ms·

91.
by csallen 4mo ago
Yes, you have to accomplish extraordinary things to get extraordinary results. How else should it work? Should investors give funding to people who haven't built anything, whose startups don't have any users, who had bad test scor
92.
by csallen 4mo ago
I too have worked for startups that failed. And when I took those jobs, I had many thousands of alternative opportunities I could've taken instead that I considered to be worse, or at least not worth pursuing compared to the startup jo
93.
by csallen 4mo ago
Plenty of counterexamples have been provided, people just don't accept them because the definition of ethical is subjective. And when you have circular reasoning that defines making money itself as unethical, then you become impossible
94.
by csallen 4mo ago
> Most people need money to eat. I don't know if you can ever really have a fair negotiation with an employer when "the rent is due" is involved. Your definition of "fair" is questionable. If you're negoti
95.
by csallen 4mo ago
There are plenty of people who would consider themselves extremely lucky to work at a startup, even for cheap. I know many older people working much worse jobs. I think it's fair to assume that most startup workers have other options,
96.
by csallen 4mo ago
> Of course the employees agreed to the deal presented to them, what other option did they have? What? The employees had infinity other options! They could have negotiated harder. They could have declined the job. They could have taken
97.
by csallen 4mo ago
You're taking the topic so literally that it's disingenuous. For some reason you're acting as if PG's advice doesn't apply to achieving success short of $1B, or as if anything short of $1B is unsuccessful, and we bo
98.
by csallen 4mo ago
All of your analogies fail because you ignore the fact that (a) most people are happy shoppers who genuinely enjoy buying much of what they buy, and who anticipate newer and better releases of games, movies, restaurants, and other products;
99.
by csallen 4mo ago
I didn't say millions of people are capable of becoming a billionaire. I said millions of people are capable of becoming successful. Both of you are reading into the "billionaire" part of PG's essay too literally, as if
100.
by csallen 4mo ago
That's an argument for AOC to make. This post is about PG responding to the argument she actually did make. She has made vague, handwavy, and (depressingly) oft-repeated statements that "there are no ethical billionaires" a
101.
by csallen 4mo ago
I don't know what you're reading, but he's talking about the fact that her startup is growing, and has happy end users, who are purchasing her product, and telling their friends. That is the system.
102.
by csallen 4mo ago
He stated the odds at YC were 30 out of probably 12k founders or so. That's not hyper unrealistic. And that's just for ~billionaire status. Much higher odds for 7-, 8-, and 9-figure outcomes. So I don't think the odds are as
103.
by csallen 4mo ago
This is pessimistic and cynical. Many millions of people are capable of succeeding if they strive for it, and in doing so making better lives for themselves and others. Hearing words of encouragement, useful advice, and inspirational exampl
104.
by csallen 4mo ago
Why would you say that people don't deserve money that others willing gave to them in return for something they wanted and found to be worth it?
105.
by csallen 4mo ago
> only 30 out of more than 6000 have succeded At becoming billionaires. Many more than that succeeded at making a good chunk of money that was life-changing for them, their families, their early employees, etc. So I think your reading
106.
by csallen 4mo ago
He very explicitly engaged with her claim that the system is unfair/unethical, and whether you agree with him or not, he argued against it: > What [AOC] meant was that it's impossible to get that rich without doing something b
107.
by csallen 4mo ago
> I suspect quite a few folks in the mines, factories, shipping, and retail chain that gets those "two happy parties" connected aren't so happy. Okay, if you're going to make such a claim and trust in it, then can I
108.
by csallen 4mo ago
He explicitly and clearly disagreed with the claims, and argued against them: > What [AOC] meant was that it's impossible to get that rich without doing something bad — without cheating in some way... The reason [my founder's]
109.
by csallen 4mo ago
Accepting money from willing customers, who are paying you for access to some technology you created that they find valuable, is not theft. Quite the opposite, it's almost always two happy parties engaging in an exchange that each of t
110.
by csallen 4mo ago
Did you read his post at all? He knew what she was saying and addressed it clearly: > What [AOC] meant was that it's impossible to get that rich without doing something bad — without cheating in some way... The reason [my founder&#
111.
by csallen 4mo ago
Who decides what's "fair"? Shouldn't the market decide? Otherwise, of course people will always be incentivized to argue that their subjective opinion is what's fair, and that's almost always going to be, &quot
112.
by csallen 4mo ago
Charging someone money that they voluntarily pay in return for getting something of value themselves is not stealing.
113.
by csallen 4mo ago
> then Company C shows up and starts finding success doing 100 harm to Area X, so Company A changes it's moral stance to "unless we do 99 harm to Area X ..." I mean yes this is technically possible. But I think in many c
114.
by csallen 4mo ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, it's quite an interesting (and important!) question. Also wonder, outside of politics and economics, whether there's a social and cultural component that can contribute. TV shows, movies
115.
by csallen 4mo ago
> I would argue it's not a real value if you are not willing to lose something in order to hold on to it. It is admirable to want to do the right thing when you can get away with doing the wrong thing. It is only a true value if you
116.
by csallen 4mo ago
> What a callous view of people. Who's your benchmark? TikTok addicted kids? It's not a "callous view," it's reality. Social media, entertainment/streaming/media, gaming, and porn make up the vast major
117.
by csallen 4mo ago
This makes no sense. Market cap and cash reserves are two different stats for a reason. Why would they need to be the same? Just to make things simpler for people who don't actually know what market cap means? (Which, granted, is the v
118.
by csallen 4mo ago
I feel like you're missing the point that it's more thorough to use both. Speed isn't the only factor that matters.
119.
by csallen 4mo ago
For some reason, tons of people seem to be in camps at both extremes. It's either "AI sucks don't trust it!" or "AI is so much better than humans!" But the most reasonable take, which I'm happy to see refl
120.
by csallen 4mo ago
I mean, I think many of us are curious and enjoy hearing more details about how and where bugs like this occur. What's wrong with that?

More ›