Startups have become something of a career path or lifestyle. It has developed into a scene, with its own media coverage and drama. I see a lot of clueless college students wanting to "do startups" as if it were any old job.
My perspective is this: Found or join a startup if have a specific product/service you want to build at a large scale. You'll earn your wealth through the equivalent amount of pain (http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html).
But coming to SF and floundering around is no better than aimlessly moving to LA to become a movie star. There are a lot better ways to spend your youth.
Edit to address my last point: Sure, there are many benefits to coming out here. But there's no benefit in coming here to just be a "scenester."
Depends on the alternatives though. Much better to be "floundering around" and amongst a group of people with similar goals then trying to do the same in Topeka Kansas (arbitrary nothing against that city.) To start you could end up meeting people who do something that will give you opportunity. Environments like this are rich in contacts as well that you can make. (Not a reason to drop out of something that you are on a path to but if you can't find that path it certainly will give you a leg up.)
Actually, now that there is a "Silicon Beach" centered around southern Santa Monica and Venice, I suppose some people flounder around in a startup WHILE trying to become a movie star. Best of both worlds!
There will always be people who want something because of what other people will think of them for it. Among my cohort growing up this has often manifested as becoming one of the big three: Doctor, Lawyer or Engineer (very much in that order). I have seen this shift toward adding "entrepreneur" to the list, and its impact on younger members of the same peer group. Make no mistake, these are not "scenesters", but the type of people who aggressively overachieve in things, even if they do not possess a purity of intent.
I would rather see a glut of entrepreneurs who don't know why they want to be one, over a glut of lawyers who don't know why they want to be one.
Many people seem to believe that if you want to do a startup, you have to do it when you're young. Young people can afford to take a lot of risk, because they have few responsibilities to hold them back. And if they fail, there'll be plenty of opportunity to make up for lost time. What few people seem to realize is that there is a second phase in your life where almost exactly the same is true, namely, when you're old. The only thing that is no longer true is that you won't be able to make up for lost time in case of failure. But if you lived a good life, you don't have to, because you've already made up for lost time in the past. And there are some extra perks, like you've probably got money to fund yourself. And you should know a thing or two that you didn't when you were young. And BTW, I'm not just blabbering here. I'm 60 and I'm doing it. Granted, I haven't been successful so far, but having the time of my life anyway. No fears, no regrets, and high like a kite on adrenalin 24/7.
Thanks for saying this. I'm an early twenty's kid who's decided to forgo the fashionable startup scene in favor of an extremely well-paid (given my age) position in a top-ten tech giant. I have a hunch that it would be more sensible to sharpen my skills when I'm young, and focus on becoming a happy and fulfilled person, only to emerge as a powerhouse of compounded experience and technical and social skill.
As someone who's already emerged on the other side of that process, can you speak to one's capability to capitalize on that experience and personal growth throughout one's life? Does middle age have to be a time of complacency and conservatism?
one point al3x didn't talk to: not all startups will teach you to be an awesome engineer. If a startup is really hiring the best of best, a less experienced programmer is not likely to make the cut. Ever look at your code from 6 months, a year, 5 years ago? and how bad it is? Many tech startups don't have time for that, the quality of your work can make or break a startup. Elite startups want "ex-googlers".
So if you want to get good, you need to work with people that are better than you, who have already learned from their mistakes so you don't have to. Find the strongest shop that will hire you. It will not be the best shop. It probably won't be an elite startup. But more mature companies can afford to pay for your learning curve. You also will probably make more money, enough to pay off your student debt and save up to bootstrap when you're more experienced.
I run a bootstrapped company and we hire the cheapest engineers we can find. I interview for competence in the one thing they understand, and then just how fast they learn. I cannot overstate the number of people out there that are incredibly smart, but can't describe basic information like how the HTTP protocol works. It is completely baffling. These people can be explained how the protocol works in 10 minutes, and spend 8 hours at home looking at the Chrome web inspector, and completely grock the protocol. I find myself a seed planter. These people are smart enough to figure it out, but for some reason they don't do it without a 10 minute verbal overview.
My advice to any to young person is to judge the job by the quality of the mentor. Smart people feel ecstasy when learning new things, and if you have anxiety about your job, then you are likely in the wrong position.
Great point. A good rule of thumb in jobs is that if you are the undisputed top <X>, make sure that you are being compensated very, very well. Because you just sold out. It is quite hard to reach new levels of expertise without explicit, task-related mentoring, and if you're trading off that kind of growth, do it explicitly.
Back when I was a manager, I used to find it somewhat depressing to interview people who had gone to startups or non-tech firms for 5-10 years, reached "senior developer" or "architect" roles, and whose levels of expertise were indistinguishable from the median recent stanford grad. Certainly, they knew more "things" but had failed to grow in either scope or depth.
This would be (and still is) a great sentiment, but the problem is that so many startups and small development shops are looking for something that most fresh graduates/junior level developers can't offer. It's a real shame, because it appears as if there's often little to no budge, and I worry for the future of the market (and by this I mean for the other 98% of the US which isn't SF or NY) because it's a real issue that's going to start rearing its head, if it hasn't already.
If you work on a startup, almost by definition you'll be doing a lot of different stuff, and changing a lot of things. That is a great environment to learn new different stuff (even out of the engineering field). Maybe not deep knowledge, on the other hand...
And, of course, working with great people will make you learn faster and better.
There are also plenty of startups that don't value or recognize technical skill and where it's easy for a junior engineer to get hired. Those are terrible as well, because (a) they'll make you stay mediocre and (b) you end up learning the wrong lessons.
>Maybe the best way to meet your goal is starting a non-profit or going into politics.
I'd like to know whose, or which, goals are better met going into politics.
Politics, at least in America, are a machine that eats good ideas and shits murder, and anybody with half a brain and the desire to change the world should know, from even casual observation, to steer clear.
For example, Elon Musk and entrepreneurs like him have done more to move the world away from fossil fuels and towards alternative energy in the last decade than the U.S. government (at any level) has in the 25 years they've been aware of climate change. Musk is inventing the future, and in Congress they're still arguing over whether climate change exists or not. And that's just how fast things move in that arena. It's unavoidable.
At this point in history, even if you don't care about money at all, even if hate for capitalism runs deep in your blood, starting a business is the only means available for make a positive impact in the world on a reasonable time scale.
And I should also point out, going into politics or non-profits means you would actually be spending more time raising money than you would if you were running a VC-backed startup. So, if your goal is to get really good at raising money, the author's sentence makes sense. For any other meaning, it doesn't.
> starting a business is the only means available for make a positive impact in the world on a reasonable time scale
There is a great deal of validity to what you say, but blanket statements like this are absurd. What capitalist venture is going to make an impact on gay marriage? What was the business model of MLK Jr.'s speeches?
It´s an example that might work in the case of Telsa, and few other companies, but in general ?
Most of the damage to the environment has been made by companies making their own interests, and by the politicians that allowed it to happen.
The only obligation the owner/CEO of a company has is towards his employers/employees, and if it aligns with a general benefit for the community at large than fine, if not... well though luck it´s not really their job, is it ?
That's why a body whose main function is (supposedly) caring for the benefit of the community is necessary and I agree with the author's point that you can have a positive impact in different ways.
It doesn't make sense to say that we don't need government/politicians, we need GOOD ones, doing the job they are paid for.
Government passed a bill that gives a sizable tax refund to those that buy electric vehicles. They also loaned Tesla 451 million dollars (that they eventually repaid, sure). Those actions have helped Tesla exist as a business.
> For example, Elon Musk and entrepreneurs like him have done more to move the world away from fossil fuels and towards alternative energy in the last decade than the U.S. government (at any level) has in the 25 years they've been aware of climate change. Musk is inventing the future, and in Congress they're still arguing over whether climate change exists or not. And that's just how fast things move in that arena. It's unavoidable.
OK, this hyperbole stretches reality much too far in several ways...but let's just examine its scientific and economic assertions. Is Elon Musk's Tesla car the best thing for the environment in the last year? 2 years? OK, let's just say "yes".
Better fuel efficiency standards is decidedly less sexy than an electric car. But small improvements across a fleet of millions and millions of vehicles easily outweigh even the best case scenario for electric cars in the foreseeable next five years.
And before you say, "Well, Tesla's achievement will inspire an unquantified amount of innovation, etc. that will lead to something even bigger"...well, I can counter that the economic impact and consequences of even small changes to fuel consumption will drive just as many, if not more innovation.
And Jesus, can we really use Tesla as a prime example of independent innovation after the recent news that it paid back its federal loan? And yes, they did pay it back early, but are you going to argue that they took a half-billion low-interest loan just for the fun of it?
And how do you think that loan came about in the first place? Politics. It's not a stretch to say that Tesla's future was pretty shaky before that loan.
----
Anyway, not to be a negative Nancy...the can-do and fuck-the-Man spirit is not something to be squelched. But it helps no one to be oblivious of the many nuances and tradeoffs we make when we organize ourselves into civilized society. And it's arguably detrimental to society at large to imply that politics and non-profits is the realm for half-brained nitwits...unless you're totally unaware of the concept of cause-and-effect.
"Yet, there is no enduring formula for creativity and rebellion."
This is a fine sounding statement, but it's false. We've been accumulating and refining techniques for having new ideas for centuries, at least. Leonardo da Vinci mentioned several in his writings.
The word "formula" is very important in his statement - yes we have techniques for coming up with new ideas, but we do not have a formula for it. A formula produces a consistent and reproducible result. If we actually had such a thing it'd be the real-life equivalent of a magic lamp; make a wish for a new idea about x and out it comes.
The reality of the situation is far too messy for such a clean solution to exist. There are an infinite number of variables, biases, and contexts that foster or hinder "creativity" and the very notion of "rebellion" is defined entirely by context. So while we may have techniques that increase our chances of coming up with new ideas, we're no where near a factory for real creativity.
EDIT: I define real creativity as "reasoned new ideas" - it's trivial to write a formula for combining things randomly, but I don't think anyone here would argue that as actual creativity.
We've been accumulating and refining techniques for having new ideas for centuries, at least. Leonardo da Vinci mentioned several in his writings.
Several? The only one I remember from reading DaVinci's journal was along the lines of "have the students work alongside each other," referring to his apprentices. The idea was that seeing each other's work would motivate each apprentice to excel and one-up one another. The YC dinners would be the modern incarnation of that.
It's a good idea. I thought that it was the only remark DaVinci wrote down about fostering creative process, though. Most of his journal is dedicated to observations from his research projects.
I dunno Paul, I think I agree with Alex on this. I see where you are coming from, because I think there are things you can do to encourage this kind of creativity, but there aren't guaranteed ways to ensure that it happens.
I get the feeling that you might be thinking about creativity in a more general sense than Alex might be though, but thats total speculation on my part.
The attempts to develop those techniques mostly showed how big is the extent to which creativity is unconscious (almost completely) and how little control we have over it. I can't think of a single case where a person we admire for their creativity admitted to using mind maps, bisociation, metaheuristics etc.
The enduring formula is the Feynman algorithm:
1. Write down the problem.
2. Think real hard.
3. Write down the solution.
True, we have been refining techniques for incremental improvement. But what of disruptive technology? Can something that is chaotic and non-deterministic have a deterministic set of steps to achieve? Is it reproducible, ceteris paribus? That's how I parse "creativity and rebellion".
There's a distinction to be made between synthetic creativity (brainstorming, workshops, etc.) and that natural creativity that doesn't come on demand and goes in more rebellious directions.
If you broaden the original statement, it's wrong, but "no enduring [single] formula" is a near-tautology. Alex must mean that if you're not creative and sharp, you won't prevail in the marketplace, which of course is likely. But clever folks can benefit from formulas, checklists, and exercises.
One could manufacture prompts all day - imagine yourself displacing incumbents by doing something new (or just doing it in a new way) - how is that happening? How are they fighting back? Why can't they stop you?
It's intrinsically motivating to win, and though you can enjoy winning in ways that aren't proved by economic measure, everyone understands market success.
Well, sure. There are formulas and techniques for creativity and rebellion in the same way there are formulas and techniques for winning a 100 meter sprint. But formulas and techniques don't turn an overweight, middle-aged guy into a world class sprinter.
1) Many jobs are at startups now, and those startups are roughly similar, therefore it's not cool anymore ("is the novelty even there").
That is just bad logic. It may be that startups replicated high pressure low gratification corporate jobs, but that's not inherent in the argument that there are more startup jobs. It could also be the case that the tech economy has really shifted from large corporations to small agile (and sometimes fun to work at) startups.
2) Startup jobs turn into corporate jobs, so you shouldn't take them in the first place.
That change is not a given, nor is it that the change will be done poorly, nor is it that the employee won't want the change by then. Anyways, if you get 1-3 years of startup experience that you enjoy, make contacts, have a chance at a payout, then there's nothing wrong with taking the startup job with the knowledge it may change and you may want out later--in fact, in every US employment contract, it's a given that the employee or the company may change their minds later.
I do agree with the idea that we need to demystify the startup scene. Being beholden to a VC is no different than to a corporate middle manager, they're both trying to carve out their little empires with your work. I think the interpersonal cost is real in certain cases, and the comment about fetishizing disruption is right on. But the 2 logical errors above weaken the message, especially since they are above the more lucid observations.
"As there was in the first dot com bubble
there is a current proliferation of startups,
incubators, accelerators, angel/seed funding,
and so forth. ... accompanied by a shared set
of values, norms, and language."
I'm currently doing a start-up. I went the University incubator route and have regretted it ever since. Feels so pedantic...
I liked this part: "Startups have been systematized, mythologized, culturally and socially de-risked; reduced down to formulas and recipes. Yet, there is no enduring formula for creativity and rebellion."
Most of these startups would be just regular corporate projects except for the fact that corporate stinginess and lack of vision is at an all time high. Startup "CEOs" are just project managers on a shoestring race to the bottom, as observed in the long hours and extreme personal sacrifice involved.
The reason the strategy works so well is that corporate politics are even more stifling to experimentation than VC-istan (but not by much).
In ten years, there'll be an open-allocation (Valve style) company that has figured out how to solve this for realz.
"There are so many ways to make a dent in the world", he says, but fails to suggest any.
So what if the startup thing isn't all it's cracked up to be? It's still better than the alternative. What else are you going to do? Go waste your time in a big corporation learning how to withstand endless, meaningless tedium?
If you're young you can probably afford to take some risk, so go take some risk! Take a shot at accomplishing something cool. The big boring corporations will always be there. If your startup experience sucks, so what? You're still better off than you'd have been if you'd spent the time playing small cog in a big machine.
And this is why I stopped playing that particular game and started playing a very different, but no less systematized and traditional game: being a consultant software developer with clients that pay per project or per hour, rather than in four-year equity vesting cycles.
This is a great cautionary polemic to those who may jump in without understanding what they really want. I'm sure it has flaws, but the intent of the author seems to be fair and careful warning to the unthinking. Fine advice, and if you still want to do a startup having analysed this piece, then you're in the right business!
"If you’re not part of the intended audience and are very very mad that a stranger on the Internet has a different opinion than you, I encourage you to direct your energy into an alternative argument that a young person might benefit from reading."
As a twenty year old who left school (in late 2011) and is currently working for a startup, the article really struck a chord with me and I must admit that it is very accurate, particularly the section, "Startups have an ongoing interpersonal cost."
That being said, I have very few regrets and have learned more than I could have ever imagined since leaving school. But there are days I wish I stayed for both personal (ex. making friends is hard and it is insanely easy to become woefully lonely) and professional/career (ex. I spend many hours on top of work studying algorithms and mathematics I would have been taught in university) reasons.
I'm a freelancer that has started his own company, and I contract with a lot of companies, one in particular could have been considered a startup at one point, but I'm not sure you'd call it that now.
I think of VC as debt. I've worked really hard to stay out of debt. Apart from a house, my goal is to never take a loan out or borrow money for anything. We have two pretty crappy cars, but we paid cash for them, and honestly, after some repairs and such, they've been running fine.
To bring it home: I treat a lot of my business the same way. I'm extremely skeptical of doing work on "borrowed money." This once-startup contract I have has been profitable (by good margins) for 5 years now, and I've been working on a $2 million project for them about 7 months now, but it was all with money the company already had.
I've turned down lucrative work in the past because they had financiers involved. I tend to work on smaller, more manageable projects (with the exception of the aforementioned example) because of this. Maybe a little more work at times (to find work), maybe a little less money, but I've never had an issue getting paid (except that one time when the business literally got washed away in Hurricane Sandy), I've not had to meet crazy deadlines or feel that sort of pressure, and I'd still consider myself to be doing very, very well.
All that said, and I am a college dropout. But I wouldn't recommend people do drop out of college, especially for a VC gig.
Business influence, autonomy, responsibility, variety, opportunity, risk, unclear solutions to open problems : things a small new startup are likely to offer to a 2[0-9] year old and a large business is less likely to.
The question is, do your personality and abilities suit a startup environment? Or is one more fitted to a structured environment? Maybe a short internship would tell.
If someone inexperienced says they want to do a startup, my advice would be to join a business with 40 to 80 employees in a market that interests you, learn how to tell who are the productive people in sales, marketing, operations and development and start a business with a couple of them. Work out which ones are hard working, effective and entrepreneurial and want to begin a business. Knowing who is excellent in areas you are weak in is a critical skill to learn (and I find extremely hard to judge unless working fairly closely with them). Many many businesses don't know who the real key employees are, or are under-valuing/under-appreciating them.
I had opportunity to join the most effective dev and marketer in a business I was working in when 24 and I didn't jump on the opportunity so I missed out (stupid me). I created a similar opportunity many years later, and it is working out very well (although rough for a couple of years).
I have collected my favorite quotes and talking points from this piece, Michael Church's "Don’t waste your time in crappy startup jobs", and Aza Raskin's "Psychological Pitfalls And Lessons of A Designer-Founder".
In some professions this guy would be considered young. Its kind of amusing to read. He has made it so even though there is some bitterness in his writing, he has obviously benefited from the system, and unlike being a struggling actor you are making some bank at a startup with a potential to make it big. Compare that to making ends meet as a waiter.
You see the same problems in students going to film school because they like to see themselves as a director. You see the same problems in big studios making blockbusters for money.
To be Primer, you have to have a specific, burning idea. To be Fassbinder, you need to have something to say (and be a genius).
Else, you can only aspire to be Cars 2 or The Phantom Menace.
[+] [-] sthatipamala|13 years ago|reply
My perspective is this: Found or join a startup if have a specific product/service you want to build at a large scale. You'll earn your wealth through the equivalent amount of pain (http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html).
But coming to SF and floundering around is no better than aimlessly moving to LA to become a movie star. There are a lot better ways to spend your youth.
Edit to address my last point: Sure, there are many benefits to coming out here. But there's no benefit in coming here to just be a "scenester."
[+] [-] Zimahl|13 years ago|reply
Not to be nit-picky but getting start-up experience isn't quite the same as going to casting calls while working at Olive Garden to make ends meet.
[+] [-] larrys|13 years ago|reply
Depends on the alternatives though. Much better to be "floundering around" and amongst a group of people with similar goals then trying to do the same in Topeka Kansas (arbitrary nothing against that city.) To start you could end up meeting people who do something that will give you opportunity. Environments like this are rich in contacts as well that you can make. (Not a reason to drop out of something that you are on a path to but if you can't find that path it certainly will give you a leg up.)
[+] [-] caycep|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chao-|13 years ago|reply
I would rather see a glut of entrepreneurs who don't know why they want to be one, over a glut of lawyers who don't know why they want to be one.
[+] [-] thebear|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfasi|13 years ago|reply
As someone who's already emerged on the other side of that process, can you speak to one's capability to capitalize on that experience and personal growth throughout one's life? Does middle age have to be a time of complacency and conservatism?
[+] [-] dustingetz|13 years ago|reply
So if you want to get good, you need to work with people that are better than you, who have already learned from their mistakes so you don't have to. Find the strongest shop that will hire you. It will not be the best shop. It probably won't be an elite startup. But more mature companies can afford to pay for your learning curve. You also will probably make more money, enough to pay off your student debt and save up to bootstrap when you're more experienced.
[+] [-] jcampbell1|13 years ago|reply
My advice to any to young person is to judge the job by the quality of the mentor. Smart people feel ecstasy when learning new things, and if you have anxiety about your job, then you are likely in the wrong position.
[+] [-] larsberg|13 years ago|reply
Back when I was a manager, I used to find it somewhat depressing to interview people who had gone to startups or non-tech firms for 5-10 years, reached "senior developer" or "architect" roles, and whose levels of expertise were indistinguishable from the median recent stanford grad. Certainly, they knew more "things" but had failed to grow in either scope or depth.
[+] [-] cuttooth|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaimebuelta|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelochurch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beatpanda|13 years ago|reply
I'd like to know whose, or which, goals are better met going into politics.
Politics, at least in America, are a machine that eats good ideas and shits murder, and anybody with half a brain and the desire to change the world should know, from even casual observation, to steer clear.
For example, Elon Musk and entrepreneurs like him have done more to move the world away from fossil fuels and towards alternative energy in the last decade than the U.S. government (at any level) has in the 25 years they've been aware of climate change. Musk is inventing the future, and in Congress they're still arguing over whether climate change exists or not. And that's just how fast things move in that arena. It's unavoidable.
At this point in history, even if you don't care about money at all, even if hate for capitalism runs deep in your blood, starting a business is the only means available for make a positive impact in the world on a reasonable time scale.
And I should also point out, going into politics or non-profits means you would actually be spending more time raising money than you would if you were running a VC-backed startup. So, if your goal is to get really good at raising money, the author's sentence makes sense. For any other meaning, it doesn't.
[+] [-] lukifer|13 years ago|reply
There is a great deal of validity to what you say, but blanket statements like this are absurd. What capitalist venture is going to make an impact on gay marriage? What was the business model of MLK Jr.'s speeches?
[+] [-] Kurtz79|13 years ago|reply
Most of the damage to the environment has been made by companies making their own interests, and by the politicians that allowed it to happen.
The only obligation the owner/CEO of a company has is towards his employers/employees, and if it aligns with a general benefit for the community at large than fine, if not... well though luck it´s not really their job, is it ?
That's why a body whose main function is (supposedly) caring for the benefit of the community is necessary and I agree with the author's point that you can have a positive impact in different ways.
It doesn't make sense to say that we don't need government/politicians, we need GOOD ones, doing the job they are paid for.
[+] [-] bentlegen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|13 years ago|reply
OK, this hyperbole stretches reality much too far in several ways...but let's just examine its scientific and economic assertions. Is Elon Musk's Tesla car the best thing for the environment in the last year? 2 years? OK, let's just say "yes".
But in the last 5 years? Obviously not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_emission_standar...
Better fuel efficiency standards is decidedly less sexy than an electric car. But small improvements across a fleet of millions and millions of vehicles easily outweigh even the best case scenario for electric cars in the foreseeable next five years.
And before you say, "Well, Tesla's achievement will inspire an unquantified amount of innovation, etc. that will lead to something even bigger"...well, I can counter that the economic impact and consequences of even small changes to fuel consumption will drive just as many, if not more innovation.
And Jesus, can we really use Tesla as a prime example of independent innovation after the recent news that it paid back its federal loan? And yes, they did pay it back early, but are you going to argue that they took a half-billion low-interest loan just for the fun of it?
And how do you think that loan came about in the first place? Politics. It's not a stretch to say that Tesla's future was pretty shaky before that loan.
----
Anyway, not to be a negative Nancy...the can-do and fuck-the-Man spirit is not something to be squelched. But it helps no one to be oblivious of the many nuances and tradeoffs we make when we organize ourselves into civilized society. And it's arguably detrimental to society at large to imply that politics and non-profits is the realm for half-brained nitwits...unless you're totally unaware of the concept of cause-and-effect.
[+] [-] pod4369|13 years ago|reply
Wait, how does Elon Musk generate electricity?
[+] [-] pg|13 years ago|reply
This is a fine sounding statement, but it's false. We've been accumulating and refining techniques for having new ideas for centuries, at least. Leonardo da Vinci mentioned several in his writings.
[+] [-] ibdknox|13 years ago|reply
The reality of the situation is far too messy for such a clean solution to exist. There are an infinite number of variables, biases, and contexts that foster or hinder "creativity" and the very notion of "rebellion" is defined entirely by context. So while we may have techniques that increase our chances of coming up with new ideas, we're no where near a factory for real creativity.
EDIT: I define real creativity as "reasoned new ideas" - it's trivial to write a formula for combining things randomly, but I don't think anyone here would argue that as actual creativity.
[+] [-] sillysaurus|13 years ago|reply
Several? The only one I remember from reading DaVinci's journal was along the lines of "have the students work alongside each other," referring to his apprentices. The idea was that seeing each other's work would motivate each apprentice to excel and one-up one another. The YC dinners would be the modern incarnation of that.
It's a good idea. I thought that it was the only remark DaVinci wrote down about fostering creative process, though. Most of his journal is dedicated to observations from his research projects.
[+] [-] trustfundbaby|13 years ago|reply
I get the feeling that you might be thinking about creativity in a more general sense than Alex might be though, but thats total speculation on my part.
[+] [-] TheBiv|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stiff|13 years ago|reply
The enduring formula is the Feynman algorithm: 1. Write down the problem. 2. Think real hard. 3. Write down the solution.
[+] [-] yarou|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] softbuilder|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] galactus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jongraehl|13 years ago|reply
One could manufacture prompts all day - imagine yourself displacing incumbents by doing something new (or just doing it in a new way) - how is that happening? How are they fighting back? Why can't they stop you?
It's intrinsically motivating to win, and though you can enjoy winning in ways that aren't proved by economic measure, everyone understands market success.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] porker|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] io|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 205guy|13 years ago|reply
1) Many jobs are at startups now, and those startups are roughly similar, therefore it's not cool anymore ("is the novelty even there").
That is just bad logic. It may be that startups replicated high pressure low gratification corporate jobs, but that's not inherent in the argument that there are more startup jobs. It could also be the case that the tech economy has really shifted from large corporations to small agile (and sometimes fun to work at) startups.
2) Startup jobs turn into corporate jobs, so you shouldn't take them in the first place.
That change is not a given, nor is it that the change will be done poorly, nor is it that the employee won't want the change by then. Anyways, if you get 1-3 years of startup experience that you enjoy, make contacts, have a chance at a payout, then there's nothing wrong with taking the startup job with the knowledge it may change and you may want out later--in fact, in every US employment contract, it's a given that the employee or the company may change their minds later.
I do agree with the idea that we need to demystify the startup scene. Being beholden to a VC is no different than to a corporate middle manager, they're both trying to carve out their little empires with your work. I think the interpersonal cost is real in certain cases, and the comment about fetishizing disruption is right on. But the 2 logical errors above weaken the message, especially since they are above the more lucid observations.
[+] [-] fixxer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] galactus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelochurch|13 years ago|reply
The reason the strategy works so well is that corporate politics are even more stifling to experimentation than VC-istan (but not by much).
In ten years, there'll be an open-allocation (Valve style) company that has figured out how to solve this for realz.
[+] [-] marssaxman|13 years ago|reply
So what if the startup thing isn't all it's cracked up to be? It's still better than the alternative. What else are you going to do? Go waste your time in a big corporation learning how to withstand endless, meaningless tedium?
If you're young you can probably afford to take some risk, so go take some risk! Take a shot at accomplishing something cool. The big boring corporations will always be there. If your startup experience sucks, so what? You're still better off than you'd have been if you'd spent the time playing small cog in a big machine.
[+] [-] YuriNiyazov|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acjohnson55|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chuckcode|13 years ago|reply
Working for a startup has been a good source of learning new skills for me but as the author notes can be hazardous to the rest of your life...
[+] [-] triplesec|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] volandovengo|13 years ago|reply
"If you’re not part of the intended audience and are very very mad that a stranger on the Internet has a different opinion than you, I encourage you to direct your energy into an alternative argument that a young person might benefit from reading."
[+] [-] jparishy|13 years ago|reply
That being said, I have very few regrets and have learned more than I could have ever imagined since leaving school. But there are days I wish I stayed for both personal (ex. making friends is hard and it is insanely easy to become woefully lonely) and professional/career (ex. I spend many hours on top of work studying algorithms and mathematics I would have been taught in university) reasons.
[+] [-] luckydude|13 years ago|reply
With any choice there are pros and cons. Lots of people, not just the young people, tend to look at the pros and pretend the cons don't exist.
[+] [-] CWSpear13|13 years ago|reply
I think of VC as debt. I've worked really hard to stay out of debt. Apart from a house, my goal is to never take a loan out or borrow money for anything. We have two pretty crappy cars, but we paid cash for them, and honestly, after some repairs and such, they've been running fine.
To bring it home: I treat a lot of my business the same way. I'm extremely skeptical of doing work on "borrowed money." This once-startup contract I have has been profitable (by good margins) for 5 years now, and I've been working on a $2 million project for them about 7 months now, but it was all with money the company already had.
I've turned down lucrative work in the past because they had financiers involved. I tend to work on smaller, more manageable projects (with the exception of the aforementioned example) because of this. Maybe a little more work at times (to find work), maybe a little less money, but I've never had an issue getting paid (except that one time when the business literally got washed away in Hurricane Sandy), I've not had to meet crazy deadlines or feel that sort of pressure, and I'd still consider myself to be doing very, very well.
All that said, and I am a college dropout. But I wouldn't recommend people do drop out of college, especially for a VC gig.
[+] [-] robocat|13 years ago|reply
The question is, do your personality and abilities suit a startup environment? Or is one more fitted to a structured environment? Maybe a short internship would tell.
If someone inexperienced says they want to do a startup, my advice would be to join a business with 40 to 80 employees in a market that interests you, learn how to tell who are the productive people in sales, marketing, operations and development and start a business with a couple of them. Work out which ones are hard working, effective and entrepreneurial and want to begin a business. Knowing who is excellent in areas you are weak in is a critical skill to learn (and I find extremely hard to judge unless working fairly closely with them). Many many businesses don't know who the real key employees are, or are under-valuing/under-appreciating them.
I had opportunity to join the most effective dev and marketer in a business I was working in when 24 and I didn't jump on the opportunity so I missed out (stupid me). I created a similar opportunity many years later, and it is working out very well (although rough for a couple of years).
[+] [-] sloria|13 years ago|reply
Here: http://www.stevenloria.com/disillusionment-in-startups-colle...
I intend to add to this list of quotes, and I also welcome others to email me related bits of wisdom.
[+] [-] samfisher83|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] intrazoo|13 years ago|reply
To be Primer, you have to have a specific, burning idea. To be Fassbinder, you need to have something to say (and be a genius).
Else, you can only aspire to be Cars 2 or The Phantom Menace.