[tisme]

I read that as 'I'm throwing all that I've got, time, resources, anything towards achieving my goal'. That's no guarantee for success but it works a lot better than doing nothing at all.

In order to win you have to first enter the games. Most people that are claiming this is 'magic thinking', survivor bias or generally down on achievement have never actually done any of this, let alone entered the game.

[Maro]

> have never actually done any of this

I spent 3+ years on my startup without being able to secure funding, getting by, fully commited [1]. I wanted to succeed really bad, but made too many mistakes from the get go and ran out of time/money eventually. To reflect on the topic of discussion, when evaluating why my startup failed (or another one succeeded), whether the founders wanted it bad enough is not a good core metric, which is what the grandparent claims.

[1] http://github.com/scalien/scaliendb

[tisme]

Heal your wounds, save some dough and same player shoots again.

You have to play a lot of chess games before you start winning. Start-ups are no different, the learning curve is quite steep but if you persevere at some point it will start to pay off. If your first start-up takes off in a couple of weeks or months that's the exception not the rule.

Establishing any kind of business normally takes about three years so you have to plan for that.

[kristopolous]

Don't give up. I just saw this 2 days ago at a talk given by Venu Anuganti (the url was on the final slide, he didn't actually vocalize it though). Seeing something for the first time twice in two days in startup land could be a fluke, or it could be a trend.

You may be on the brink of success. In fact, I'm going to download and compile this right now.