I wonder what the numbers look like when restricted to 'companies that sound like good ideas'.
Not that that's a requirement. Some ideas famously sounded bad (Google had plenty of doubters?). But a lot of these AI and wearable things seem.. silly. I guess I'm getting old.
In fairness, I think pg mostly concerns himself with start-ups whose goals are to become a unicorn or be acquired by one.
I think there are plenty of boring, sustainable businesses built on good, logical sounding ideas that have found their niche in the industries they find themselves in.
Not true when it comes to new tech. That's why anytime there's a new piece of tech there's a gold rush of new companies born. Internet, smart phones, social platforms, etc.
Most of those ideas are bad because to be a unicorn you need to achieve something that seems damn near impossible at the time. Think VR, AI, Take over taxi biz, compete with big finance. It’s not a bad idea per se but it’s bad because it takes ridiculous scale to do so and most likely to fail
It's even easier if you can afford the lawyers to bend rules, break the spirit of the laws and in some cases the actual letter of the law - just long enough to achieve dominance and then you can help write the laws to stop others competing with you.
Is that really true? The only example I can think of is online clothes shopping... But that certainly isn't a clear cut case (remember boo.com?).
Online dating maybe?
Certainly most big successful tech startups have pretty obvious businesses; they just executed them particularly well or at the right time or with the right connections.
Acquaint yourself with the “coaching” industry (think: life coaching)
Almost all the money in it comes from milking people who’ve been sold on the idea of launching their own life coaching business, not from people with other careers seeking life coaching.
Whatever tiny legitimate side of that market exists is very-obviously saturated to the tune of a large multiple over what’s sustainable, and it’s pretty clear the real money remaining is in selling people the idea that they too can launch their own coaching business (“be your own boss! You don’t want a boring corporate job forever, do you? That may be fine for some people, I guess, but not for you!”) and have an easy, lucrative career, then charging them money to (supposedly) teach them how (“well of course coaches need coaches, too!”).
And yet, despite all this being pretty damn obvious, lots of people get sucked into the scam-vortex anyway.
Similar things happen all over the place. Starting restaurants without a solid path to success even on paper, et c. Folks deceive themselves really well when dreams get involved.
So, lots of people waste both time and money on clearly-bad business ideas.
There's thousands of video games for instance that are just blatantly obviously bad ideas but nevertheless get years of work put into them. This goes for any tier too, indies, AA, AAA, etc. Why? Still haven't figured that out, but I've seen way too much effort put into games that are destined to fail. I don't know where that drive comes from particularly in the indie space but I really wish I had it. Point is, the quality of an idea does not seem to be a major factor that constrains people from committing a ton of resources bringing it into reality.
You’ve got to have a local core of people to bounce ideas off each other.
I moved from Austin to Appalachia to care for parents. The lack of any entrepreneurial spark here is just jarring. People just keep their heads down. They want better - but there’s zero intellectual infrastructure.
My experience having grown up in the WV portion of Appalachia is that there used to be a number of highly localized small businesses, but ability to scale was highly restricted.
Back in the 90s my father ran a little greenhouse that he sold plants out of for example which brought in a little bit of extra income for the family, but wasn’t able to scale it up due to lack of access to the capital required to do so, and money didn’t exactly grow on trees out there even 30 years ago (when financially things were much better there than they are now). Even if he had been able to scale, I’m not sure how long it could’ve lasted. Bigger greenhouses in the area ended up being run out of business when Walmart came in and started selling plants for prices that no small business could compete with.
These days that part of the state is a ghost of what it was back then. So many businesses have closed down or moved out, small/startup or otherwise.
I think that's partly a generational thing. The younger generations tend to be willing to spend more to ensure a "clean" supply chain--where clean means things like no slavery, family owned business, etc. The older generation tends to do what you're talking about. This is true in my family, but I've also read studies somewhere that illustrate that this is a pretty strong correlation between generations.
Appalachia’s a big place I guess, but the thing I found most remarkable in the North Carolina portion of it was that damn near every rural-road mountain driveway seemed to have a sign marking that the house was also home to a small business.
Could it be because everyone was laid off and needs a job? Could it be unprecedented amounts of layoffs are an orchestrated measure by large corporations to "ensure" they are not "monopolies", as anti-trust season kicks off? Could it be that those same large corporations will end up buying or strategically killing these same start ups because they inevitably engage in anti-competitive practices? Could it be that lobbying dollars will shelter these large corporations from enduring legal ramifications?
I think the article is painting an overly positive view of the situation, without looking into anymore than a surface level causality
How many of these new businesses are started because it's the only way to make ends meet?
How many of these businesses actually have a sustainable plan? AI can do some cool things, but I think the market is oversaturated by apps that are nothing more than a skin over ChatGPT
I'm predicting that most of these businesses will have closed again in five years and there'll be a sudden "unexpected" rise in unemployment by then
> the market is oversaturated by apps that are nothing more than a skin over ChatGPT
OpenAI et al expressly don't care about small applications, but will do deals e.g., with Apple. So aside from humanity-wide applications, AI commercialization depends entirely on all these skins.
It's often a harder problem to get people used to new technology than to build it, particularly since it's hard to keep a customer you trained without some lock-in that is off-putting to new customers.
Most may fail; but a few fortunes will be made from skinning AI, and customers will be better for it.
I go into more depth in the sibling comment, but I am not that optimistic about the prospect of these start-ups, given that ChatGPT is currently heavily subsidised by Microsoft
When that cost eventually has to be recouped I think the pricing will make it unsustainable for use in consumer products
There's definitely some people who'll become rich from it, but I think it's more likely going to be from acquisitions by a large corporation than from direct consumer sales
I want to push back on the idea that a “a skin over chatgpt” has no value a little, because it’s a common sentiment, but the tide is shifting amongst a lot of people I’m in contact with and what I’m building indeed makes API calls to OpenAI/Anthropic.
In my opinion foundational models are essentially becoming commodity products with only temporary functional differences (eg voice) and ever-changing relative quality and aptitude for certain problems. Yes, OpenAI/Google/Anthropic/Microsoft can launch their own apps built on top of foundational models, but so can almost anybody else, and presumably there will be (or already is) a plateau in quality improvements so that open models may catch up and drastically reduce costs for those calling LLMs in their products.
In my opinion reducing applications that call LLMs to skins over <insert model name> is like calling web applications skins over JavaScript, or a database, or a Java backend. Yes the technology has value in itself and they’ve commercialized it with conversational interfaces, but there are many more business applications or technical products that could use LLMs (on top of other things) and don’t exist yet. And surely many attempts will fail, but I think it’s going to become the primary way that LLMs become commercialized as time goes on.
I probably worded myself too harshly. There could definitely be value in a good ChatGPT "skin". I personally use Neurolist, which is pretty good
With that said, I think the main problem faced by these new businesses is not making people use the apps, but the cost of running the models themselves
Right now they're essentially being subsidised by Microsoft (in the case of ChatGPT at least). I think it's inevitable that there'll be a price hike and that it'll destroy the value proposition of these skins
ChatGPT is currently $20/month for a private user and from what I can gather from different news sources, OpenAI is still taking a loss on those sales. Most "skins" will probably have to charge at least the same for their service and I an app honestly has to be pretty amazing for me to fork over that amount of money every month
These are of course just back-of-the-envelope guestimates and I could be wrong about a lot of the assumptions I make here. Given the consequences it would have for the people running all these new businesses, I certainly hope I'm wrong
"A paper published in March by the Census Bureau found a particularly sharp increase last year in business applications based around artificial intelligence (ai)."
If we exclude the gold rush of startups doing something "AI", the picture would look a lot different. Personally, I'm looking forward to a similar article two years from now about a sharp spike in US business failures.
Something they don’t really touch on is the massive layoffs from big tech, I’m sure many of those people were happy to take a paycheck but once that dried up they went back to building their own company based on whatever idea they had that was too small for Google/facebook/etc.
Half of all businesses fail after 5 years anyway according to Bureau of Labor Statistics. Might as well make a stake in something you can call your own, right? I often think of the pg essay where he claims none of the founders in the first batch regretted the experience. Worst case scenario I think is that you get the kind of experience that every company is looking for in employees. Counterintuitively I think being a founder is one of the best things you can do for your resume, even if you fail.
I was looking over some data from a similar article and I found it striking how many of these new business application increases were in the South, Mid-Atlantic, and Mid-West states, rather than the West or Northeast. (At least for 2020 vs 2019.) One interpretation could be that these were places where stay at home orders were for “un-Zoomable” jobs (retail, manufacturing, machinists, construction, services), and thus workers were taking the plunge on entrepreneurship to create their own work. Map visualization here:
It's one of those moments in tech like when the internet was coming and it was obvious it was going to change most business.
Now it's AI. You can take almost any human problem and pitch for AI to make it better, even if you are only using an API to ChatGPT. Or even if the AI doesn't work just now, there's a good chance it will in a year or two.
Not to get off on the wrong foot (and I'm sure it's obvious on HN) but starting your own business !== startup. In the broader culture, startup has become a trendy word (along with entrepreneur). Most people using these words don't actually understand what they mean.
It's as if they're holding their pet in their arms. They say, "Would you like to pet my dog" and they're actually holding a cat.
I'm certainly not knocking SMB biz owners. I'm one. But that doesn't make me a startup. It doesn't make me an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurial? Or entrepreneur-minded? Sure. But I - along with many others - don't meet the definition of entrepreneur.
Back of the envelope (and of couse there are exceptions and subtleties to all these)...
- scale, as in they think about it. Franchising your brand === entrepreneur. Buying a franchise - despite Entrepreneur mag's narrative - does not.
- exit, as in they don't lose sight of it
- hit by a bus (similar to exit). An entrepreneur's brand continues without them.
- innovation and/ uniqueness in product. Opening another cookie cutter lemonade stand don't cut it
- risk, their lens is not about risk, it's about opportunity. That is, where other see risk, the true entrepreneur sees opportunity.
I might have one or two others but that's the basic filter.
<edit>
One to add.
- upsetting - I don't like the word disruption. It's over used and it's the wrong goal. The goal is to identify a market and find fit. Disruption in and of itself is silly. That said, if you're not pissing some one(s) off then you're likely not an entrepreneur. Again, another lemonade stand isn't grounds enough to be considered an entrepreneur.
Why? If a word has a perfectly workable definition that everybody is already familiar with, why do we “need” to hijack it with a new, different definition?
I would argue that most SMB business owners are more entrepreneurial than the average "founder". To me "entrepreneur" connotes risk, and most VC backed entrepreneurs are only risking their time (with good odds of being a well payed employee if they fail). SMB owners are often risking a significant amount of their personal wealth (and potentially their home as well).
You’re forgetting to mention that many startups pay in promises and game those in the end that only founders get paid big and the employees who put in the time get close to nothing.
Nah. That trope is a all too common false assumption. Where others see risk, the true entrepreneur sees opportunity. The myth of Entrepreneurs being willing to embrace more risk is a false one. Rather they see things others do not and ultimately mitigate risk. They fact that others use risk as the metric proves my point.
You can certainly be an entrepreneur and not do the traditional startup route (i.e., angels, VCs, etc).
You can also be a founder of a company that is effectively a knock-off of some other company / model. Sorry, but regardless of how you go about it, cookie cutter'ing it isn't good enough. That's not an entrepreneur.
I think you do - you organized a business venture and assumed the risk for it.
I've founded or co-founded two venture funded startups and two self-funded businesses, and I consider them equally entrepreneurial.
The ISP, while we didn't take external funding, was definitely a startup. I don't put the cryptocurrency crap in the startup bin because I deliberately chose not to grow it to have employees beyond the three founders, even though it was the most profitable of all of the ventures. Weird that.
I would agree at least that “entrepreneur” connoted something pretty different to me before I became familiar with its usage in tech startup culture. I’d not have included “solo-preneur” or businesses that just operate things (“I own a lot of vending machines”) or a restaurant, say. It implied employees and a market that leans more industrial, and that produces something (even if it’s software, I suppose). I’d not have classed a small tech agency or a dry cleaning business as “entrepreneurship”—which takes nothing away from them, it’s just that the term meant something more-specific to me.
Looking at older dictionaries, this does seem to be more in-line with what the term used to mean, and probably still does in some circles.
The very first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on entrepreneurship, plus some dictionaries, suggest that yes, it has, and not only that, but the usage in spaces like this one is still not the dominant one.
Unless you’re agreeing that the word still means what I suggest it does (or did), not just starting any kind of business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurship
> An entrepreneur (French: [ɑ̃tʁəpʁənœʁ]) is an individual who creates and/or invests in one or more businesses, bearing most of the risks and enjoying most of the rewards.
nothing there precludes even microbusinesses. and nothing requires taking VC or having employees.
I can cite multiple mainstream sources that definitely suggest it connotes something other than the broadest possible version of that, including, again, Wikipedia. The barest definition isn’t a full description of what a word suggests to people.
I agree that this is the meaning in startup and “hustle” culture: any business whatsoever may be described as entrepreneurship.
[edit] my entire point is simply that the “opening a solo software consultancy is entrepreneurship” or what have you is not universally accepted, and that my experience (plus what evidence I’ve found) is that this sense predates the one of “starting literally any kind of money-making venture is entrepreneurship” which is common in spaces like HN. You may disagree, but I guarantee there are many contexts in which using it in the startup/hussle sense will make you come off as clownish or a liar, if not some kind of con artist, if people realize you aren’t talking about the kind of thing they think you are.
Maybe this is the future in a somewhat saturated world: LLMs as operating systems, aka platforms, and apps as expressions of them on top of existing layers like OSes, yet another layer.
Many apps on the app stores around the smartphone OSes aren't that elaborated either. What one considers a feature might serve a purpose for someone else who is willing to pay for it.
hack: do a startup only after you already have living money assured (savings from earlier corporate jobs, now invested & producing). you have time & energy, and no obligations.
I got a chuckle out of that too, but then I thought: Wait--why do we simply accept that starting a business should mean sacrificing one's family or freedom? I mean, if it's an actual, viable business, shouldn't one be able to just do it from 9 to 5 like it's a normal job? Why does every startup have to be this heroic herculean effort against all odds that requires 140 hour work weeks and employees with no lives? Maybe a startup that requires that much effort is really not a viable business and requires that much just to prop it up and keep it going? But, then I can't find any examples of startups that just operated as normal, chill businesses from day one. So, maybe it just does have to be that way.
I work in one of those. Straight from the beginning it’s been pretty standard 9-5 and decent salary. Slow and steady growth for half a decade and now it’s turning a profit.
But here are the things that are different:
* Nobody is earning millions here. The salary is roughly at market rate, if not slightly below.
* The funding is a parent-corporation sort of relationship that plays the long game and doesn’t expect to sell after 5 years. But it also means people are paid entirely in real money.
* We only hire as many as we need and not entire divisions to simultaneously re-invent deep learning, target the whole world, and bleed billions of investor dollars in the process.
Finally, this startup (well, scale-up I suppose) is European, and not US-based, and I think the whole unicorn-based way of running things is slightly foreign around here.
So is it a “startup” or just a business growing its customer base with a successful product?
It's easy to lash out against the VC culture, but the problem is us. We're the ones who dream of building a billion-dollar unicorn in two years - and that means entirely unsustainable efforts to build products and grow by burning heaps of VC money while constantly pitching for more.
How many founders move to the Bay Area thinking "you know, what I really want to build is a small business?" And how many HN techies would enthusiastically join a project like that?
I don't get it. My experience is that techies in the original sensor of the word have always enthusiastically joined companies where they thought the technology was profoundly cool. Business size or profits have little to do with it as it is how interesting or transformational the tech is. Most of us just want to get paid to do the thing we're passionate about, and have no particular interest in entering the world of personal yachts.
In fact the desire of people to "just work on really neat tech" and have some creative influence and work outside of a big boring company is exactly what has allowed many startups to underpay and play carrot-on-stick with stock options for years.
Almost nobody is getting rich inside these "tech" startups, the options agreements are written to prevent it. Maybe the founding engineers, but nobody after that.
I feel like what has happened is that the words "startup" and "tech" have been redefined by a small segment of the population who are interested in one particular thing being described here in this thread.
But I've been around long enough to remember when it meant "a group of people getting together to make some really neat tech."
Honestly the motivations of people who started a bunch of the foundational SV ecosystem were exactly that and not "let's be billionaires" That is very much a post-Y2k mentality.
It’s the same principle as investing in retirement. The heavier investments you make early, the greater impact they’ll have down the line. Only with a startup it often ends up being your time instead of money that is sacrificed.
Think about it: if you can gain 1 customer through every 40 hours of work, then by working 80 hours per week you can essentially double the early size of your business. Hire twice as many employees, which can introduce exponential scaling opportunities. Make double the bets on new ideas. It’s a huge boost. After 1 month you could have sold just 4 customers working 40 per week, or closer to 10 and be writing job ads already by working extra.
It is a trap, though. Your health will suffer, your relationships will suffer, you’ll become completely self-absorbed. Some things just aren’t worth it in my opinion.
Startups work this way because they are operating in an economy dominated by financial fraud and enormous monopolistic incumbents. Without the need to impress investors who expect endless unrealistic projections of growth supported by unsustainable amounts of labor, or worse, to compete in a landscape where giant firms might just decide to compete with you or destroy you because you proved there was a market for something, a small business is hard work
This- the barriers to solo founding and funding a brand new business working with physical assets are insane in much of the US.
For the most part you’re required to deal with all the same laws that a multi billion dollar incumbent is, and often times even more (zoning, permitting that are hard law for small players and easily flexed by local government for dubious jobs claims by large players). Many areas charge fixed annual fees for incorporation that are notable for an individual but irrelevant at scale. Rigorous accounting and record keeping standards. High salaries even for uneducated manual labor work. Building any modest physical structure requires what amounts to most middle class individuals entire expected lifetime earnings and you largely aren’t able to legally do any of that work yourself.
There’s a good reason California startups exist in the way they do, and if you aren’t doing software or running an unlicensed pop up fruit stand or flower shop you often look elsewhere.
> I mean, if it's an actual, viable business, shouldn't one be able to just do it from 9 to 5 like it's a normal job?
Do you have an example of a reasonably successful business that's a 9-5 job when getting started? Forget startups... let's say you want to open a dry cleaners, bakery or hardware store... none of those seem like they'd be 9-5 jobs. The one exception might be a consulting business if you already have lots of relationships in a space, although most independent consultants who I know tend to have periods of feast and famine.
The issue is that getting your first customers is hard. And then once you have traction, but don't have enough money to hire people, that's hard again. And then once you grow larger, you have more responsibility yet again. At some point, the gears start turning themselves and I've seen many owners who can take a step back, but at that point it's no longer a "startup" but a "business".
Feats and famine is actually not that bad. When I did freelance I had high intensity periods and then low intensity periods. I found that much healthier than the constant never ending medium effort often meaningless grind in the corporate world.
This to me feels like the natural rhythm of productive work, meaning: if money is no object and you’re working on something that you are intrinsically interested in, you will naturally work in a feats-and-famine pattern. There will be weeks where you don’t take a day off because you are working at peak capacity. Then you reach a logical break in the work and decompress for a little while, doing barely anything.
I think the highly-regularized pattern of the 40-hour work week, 9-5, is not a natural rhythm. I think it kills the human spirit with its unnatural regularity and monotony.
Depending on who you ask, a "9 to 5 normal job" is sacrificing family and freedom. Women in particular hate this diverging life path because they can't have both career and marriage/kids, but everyone both men and women ultimately have to find a compromise that works for them.
Well, between a 9 to 5 and a 9 to 9 (including the weekend) many would prefer the former. The latter is risky and may not pay in the end or it could pay a lot. Many people who have families can’t afford that risk.
There is a huge range of profitability that would be incredible for a founder who owns all our the best majority of the company, but a failure for most VCs. I don't know VC finance enough to say where the upper limit is, but I'm pretty sure several million $ profit per year still is in that range.
You can start pretty much any business and be successful with a small group of founders and no VC money (from experience, this can be anything from a wholesale flower business to a WordPress plugin to a hosting provider). The problem is that VCs push you to grow too fast and too hard, then pull funding when it "fails" and you've got an entire staff to feed, pay, and manage. Thus, you go bankrupt.
If you choose to play a long game, you can have a nice stable-ish income for 2-3 people after 5-ish years.
As a solo-entrepreneur with no VC money, I work 12 hour days way more often than I should. I work weekends. I even made a bunch of commits on Christmas eve. Big reason is honestly that it's just that much fun. It's hard to put down the work and take time off because I want to do more. It's the same stupid reason I've poured 1200 hours into Factorio. Building stuff is fun.
Took last week off from work. Just did nothing. Slacked off. This is the first vacation I've had for over a year. According to my fibit, my resting heart rate went down 12 points. I have so many new ideas and plans for what to do next. I feel more inspired and honestly like a new person.
I think a lot of small startups and entrepreneurs work too much. Working 12 hour days is strictly worse than 8 hour days over time. If you skimp on rest and recovery, you gradually transform into an idiot. Do you want an uninsipired idiot for a CEO for your tenuous new business? Because that's what you're turning yourself into.
That's the thing that needs to be taken into account during these discussions. 12 hours grinding away at a steel mill? Hard. 12 hours at my computer having fun writing code, cracking bugs, listening to good music, and eating tasty food throughout the day? Pretty neat.
> This is the first vacation I've had for over a year.
This is the tough part, though, and I admire you for that. I've always been perfectly happy to work 12+ hour days without days off, but only as long as I know that if I need a break, I -can- take a break, go off for a week or whatever. Knowing that I -can- tap out whenever I want is the key to stopping burnout, for me. If I couldn't, I'd have to be much more restrained.
> But, then I can't find any examples of startups that just operated as normal, chill businesses from day one.
They wouldn’t grow big. But there are plenty, from the neighbourhood plumber to the daycare to the modest insurance outfit that keeps being sold from person to person as they retire.
High demand, so little initial grinding for clients. High demand also means standards aren’t high. People can’t be that picky about daycare or plumbers these days.
What if I told you that 10 other people had the same idea as you and are willing to work 9 to 6? Or 9 to 9 even?
The reason most successful startups take tons of work is that they are competing against peers willing to put in tons of work. If the whole ecosystem decided 9 to 5, 5 days a week was the effort cap, then sure, but game theory tells us that won't happen.
Seems like a psyop to me. The work is important, but not the most important part. Execution is vital, but if you're executing on a shit idea and are not able to reorient plans quickly and deftly, you'll likely end up wasting an enormous amount of time going down the wrong alleys.
A real example is a friend of mine that only sleeps an hour or so every few days. Yes, his work output is fantastic, but his planning, decision-making, and "big picture" foresight are nil.
He is grinding out tried-and-true business models, but is unable to take it to the next level because he simply does not have the creativity, free time, or the wandering mind to make those leaps.
Sure, he makes a very good amount of money, but he's been hit in the past with having to shutter businesses due to completely foreseeable potholes.
When you focus completely on getting to your destination, you never stop and ask yourself if that's really where you need to go.
I will also note that the people that "work" 9 to 9 and so on are very rarely doing non-delegateable work or working on high-intensity "important" problems for the entire duration. That sort of thing is simply impossible, because you lose your consciousness after a short bit, and end up running on intuition and learned movements, i.e. a robot.
There is something to be said about working hard, but there is a lot of nuance lost in most discussions (dare I say, because most people that survived this game did so with a huge dash of luck, and are not cognizant of what really moved the needle).
I've been working on startups for over 20 years. Some have sold, some haven't. None have become household names.
In order to support this life, I had to provide consulting services for other companies. Many of them are startups themselves. In any case, this meant I worked at least three full-time jobs. I would work to find clients, work to provide services to those clients, and work to build my startup.
In one case, the startup would take off and pay all of my bills so I could focus on it. In another case, we raised money from investors to focus on it.
In any case, if you want a 9-5 gig contract and don't want to find the work, you can try and use recruiters if you are a knowledge worker. If you aren't a knowledge worker, then you probably will be relying on gig work like Uber/DoorDash. In the case of the latter, you better have a lot of roommates since those pay so poorly.
“Startups” doesn’t mean “starting up a new business”, it means a company that is capable of hyperscaling. It’s shorthand for growth, per one of pg’s essays.
Lots of people start “normal, chill” lifestyle businesses. But nothing about a successful startup is “normal” in the traditional sense of the term.
BTW, I think all but one of my startups would fit the pg essay, but when you read articles like this one, the evidence is not that pg style startups are going crazy, but rather self-employment and small business is growing... mostly self-employment.
If it's an startup, AKA a business built to grow at a huge rate and become a giant from nothing, then it's necessarily risky and anything you do in it has a larger than linear impact. So the one startup where the owners put an extra hour/day will probably win the market and the others will fail.
If it's a business built to be sustainable, sure, you should be able to run it 9 to 5.
I can't actually see what the article is claiming, due to the paywall.
Does it need to become a giant though? If I don't sell large portions to investors, I'd be thrilled with something that makes in profit roughly what a good tech salary pays.
This is not true, unless you are putting more into your startup than your marriage. It's priorities. My marriage and child is always more important than money and chasing an idea.
> My marriage and child is always more important than money and chasing an idea
Startups are very demanding on time and attention resources. Families with children would feel the strain of absent parents. It could work out in some cases but for the general case it’s not the best idea.
Just to put this into perspective, as the oldest child of 4 kids, and now a parent, I’ve constantly lived with competing priorities pretty much my whole life. I’ve always made time to be there when they need me. It’s surprising how understanding people are when you explain why you need to move a meeting (in case of emergencies), but usually, just blocking time in your calendar as “important meeting” does the trick. If you have someone managing your schedule, make sure they know that nothing goes there, ever.
If you have to travel, take a couple days before/after and bring your family; see the city. Even ask whomever you’re meeting where to go. More often than not, you’ll spend some time with them because people want to show off their city, which just makes it that much easier to sell when it comes time to do so.
Um. Just don't do that? As with everything, this is a choice you make but nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to be absent in your family.
Okay seriously this can work but it will really force you to work on your communication skills. Which is probably a good thing anyway, for both the business and the relationship, but it's very challenging.
Because it is stealing, un-capitalism, and evil. HackerNews should BAN archive links like this that go around the paywall, and any mention of tools that allow users to bypass paywalls or ad-like content. I'm so sick of entitled HackerNews users whining about having to pay for services. It's as if they think there are no operating costs.
Piracy is stealing. So is adblock and circumventing paywalls. You are not stealing the content literally persay, but you are violating a contract and stealing bandwidth that can be for an honest user.
The same goes for all the whiners on HN when YouTube fights back against uBlock Origin. They just want to have their cake and eat it too and won't admit that they are stealing from Google and Content Creators. Privacy is a non-issue.
> HackerNews should BAN archive links like this that go around the paywall, and any mention of tools that allow users to bypass paywalls or ad-like content.
Paywalled articles are generally against HN Guidelines actually, and dang has commented that the exception are articles that have a non-paywalled version available, and in that spirit dang has tacitly acknowledged that HN users do tend to post gift links and archive links and other workarounds in the comments, so that paywalled links that would otherwise be disallowed are then therefore acceptable under the guidelines.
So, you’re right personally to want to support journalism and publications that you enjoy, and please continue to do so. Try not to nerd snipe other HN users, cos we’re all on the same team, and we’re all trying to learn and by doing, to build and grow an open, collaborative community by being nice and good to each other.
I don’t represent HN in any capacity, just a user like you, so please take this as just one person’s opinion and perspective.
Follow-up to my sibling comment as it’s too late to edit:
I don’t really have much exposure to in-the-wild usage of the term, but I’m pretty sure you’re correct about the meaning, and once I thought about it a bit more and the weird way the word is used and how it’s glued together, I came up with the following:
I have no way to verify this, but my folk etymology of nerd sniping is a type of snipe hunt targeted at nerds specifically.
> I think nerd sniping is when you dangle a super intriguing problem in front of someone, and they can't help but dive into the problem.
You’re probably correct; I was splitting the infinitive sorta, and I’m probably using that term incorrectly also, so please do correct my usage if you know the correct terminology.
Instead of using it as “nerd sniping” as a compound word, I was using it as “nerd” “sniping”, like nerd betta fish verbally shooting at each other from their own discursive barrels.
“Don’t be a pedant on HN” any% challenge: accepted lol
By that same token, HN should auto-remove links to ClosedAI and other tools (SD, MidJourney, etc) that generate output based on copyrighted material, with no attribution.
