What a stupid idea - <AUTHOR> http://dcurt.is/what-a-stupid-idea <comment><USER3> Success is not validation of an idea and we should be ashamed to think so.

Cigarettes are one of the most successful consumer products on earth. Inhaling a lungful of carcinogenic smoke several hundred times a day is undoubtedly a stupid idea. Tobacco has made a small number of people incomprehensibly rich, to the great detriment of humanity.

Personally, I think nearly all of these 'social' startups are bad news. Not as bad news as a lung cancer epidemic, but bad news nonetheless. I think they feed a culture of passivity and attention deficit. I think they fragment human interaction into the smallest possible dopamine-inducing units. I think they're essentially Skinner boxes in disguise - apps that dress up an intermittent schedule of reward as meaningful activity.

The startup culture talks the talk about "changing the world", but in truth most of us couldn't care less so long as we get our next funding round. For every Watsi, we have a hundred bullshit companies with bullshit products, providing yet another means of idle distraction for indolent westerners. We can hardly distinguish between what is worthwhile and what is popular or profitable. It has hardly occurred to Curtis or anyone in these comments that an idea could be both successful _and_ stupid.

Is Pinterest really an innovative sharing tool, or is it merely a collaborative exercise in commodity fetishism? Is Vine really a radical new way to communicate, or is it merely the nadir of audiovisual culture, fragmenting the world into six-second shards of nothingness? Do we even care?

<comment><USER4> I'm going to say it first, I'm sure others will be thinking it. This is the WORST type of comment on HN.

Tobacco was invented in 5000 BC according to wikipedia. At that point in time it had basically none of the bad side effects you mention due to shorter life spans. It probably had numerous positive side effects.

Now you don't like facebook??? Well, honestly, I do. I like it to keep in touch with people and it had real value to me when I moved to a city where I didn't know a single person as it made me feel less alone. I'm sure many others have benefited.

Judging a startup, company, etc. because you don't see the value shows you are overly judgmental and immature.

The product market has been very good at delivering value over the last 7,000+ years. Let it do its job and try to get off your high horse.

The companies mentioned are highly successful. If you think you can do it, feel free to do it, donate the cash you make to Watsi and sit in your recliner while enjoying how good of a person you are. Otherwise, make a comment that adds value like the OP did.

Full disclaimer: I couldn't care less about any of the companies mentioned, I'm just sick of reading comments like this.

[edit] added an n't to could

<comment><USER5> > _Tobacco was invented in 5000 BC according to wikipedia. At that point in > time it had basically none of the bad side effects you mention due to > shorter life spans. It probably had numerous positive side effects._

Another reason that tobacco historically had "basically none of the bad side effects" is that people didn't smoke it nearly in the quantities they do today. Then a few startups (well, they weren't called that back then) came along and it "has made a small number of people incomprehensibly rich, to the great detriment of humanity".

> _Now you don't like facebook??? Well, honestly, I do. I like it to keep in > touch with people and it had real value to me when I moved to a city where I > didn't know a single person as it made me feel less alone. I'm sure many > others have benefited._

Strawman. Nowhere in his post jdietrich mentions Facebook.

> _The companies mentioned are highly successful._

No one argues that these companies aren't successful. The argument is that the fact that they are highly successful does not mean that they are a good for society as a whole.

> _I could care less about any of the companies mentioned_

You mean, you _couldn't_ care less, right? :P (Sorry, that particular Americanism is a pet peeve of mine.)

<comment><USER6> > You mean, you couldn't care less, right? :P (Sorry, that particular > Americanism is a pet peeve of mine.)

"I could care less" is an American idiom, and this is a US site. Ad hominem.

<comment><USER7> There's plenty of Americans that are annoyed by it, too.

Also please go learn what "ad hominem" actually means. It does not simply mean "insult".

<comment><USER6> I know what it means. Why add it to the end of an argument out of the blue if it's not intended that way? Still it was late at night and I should have added my own smiley. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A few points, some already cited here:

* Survivor bias (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_bias>) is yielding a self-selection in the positive results. I'm sure there are plenty of stupid ideas that went nowhere. Probably as much as "Great" ideas that went nowhere. So, I think saying that his opinion that something was stupid is a counter-indicator of its degree of success doesn't have much merit.

* Second, an idea or early prototype has little correlation to its inevitable success or failure. As is often said, execution is everything. The idea is necessary, but not sufficient to guarantee a market success, as defined differently by different markets.

* Third, while he decries his stance as calling something "stupid" as an arrogant position, this article itself comes across as arrogant -- in effect he's positioning himself near the beginning of these companies' inception and being in the position of being asked his opinion in a taste-maker fashion. I suspect in reality, he was one of many people that were exposed to this idea and his opinion was mostly irrelevant in their efforts to pursue the idea. It can be interpreted as very Forrest Gump to position ones self at the crux of so many eventual market successes when in reality that is not the case. I'd like to understand the context of these meetings. I've certainly been at the early-stages of many ideas, but no one asked for, or cared about, my opinions. In which case, saying that they were stupid ideas was an opinion offered only to myself. And I probably did indeed think they were stupid at the time. Was I arrogant? No. But then I don't claim that anyone cared about my opinion.

* Finally, I call your attention to Pinterest's actual success path (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinterest> and <http://www.famousbloggers.net/history-pinterest.html>). They iterated and "failed" for 2 years before becoming an "overnight success". I dare say that perhaps at the time of the meeting, Pinterest's idea and execution were probably stupid, and it took time and relentless iteration to make it a success. In fact, "Silbermann said he personally wrote to the site's first 5,000 users offering his personal phone number and even meeting with some of its users." Which goes to show just how many people's opinions he solicited in the process of building to its current level of success.

<comment><USER9> It's a bit uncharitable to call "I thought Pinterest and Vine were dumb" arrogance.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, I still think pintrest and vine are dumb, its just they have a lot of users.

Just because you think something is dumb doesn't mean it isnt a viable business model.

People sell virtual rubies to people building ruby houses all day every day, and that is dumb.

<comment><USER11> I had the same comment below. Does popularity make up for it being stupid in the first place? So, because someone can get rich, does it mean his idea was right?

Well, maybe in a business sense, the idea was not wrong if you could gather enough fools to back you up, but that does not make it less of a stupid idea.

<comment><USER12> How does one define a stupid or smart idea? Do I have to chip away at world hunger for my idea to be smart? Or do I have make a billion dollars for my idea to smart? The production of the iPhone has contributed to the suicide of a lot of people. Is the iPhone a stupid idea? On what scale of success does an idea have to achieve? If Groupon only made a select few rich at the expense of others, was a smart idea on the founders part, or not? Does the founder really care, or does he regret it?

Given all these factors, its clear you can't have an objectively stupid or smart idea. I think the only right questions you can ask are "How are you going to execute on it?" and decide whether or not the founder is stupid or not. I'm not sure there are many people on the planet who can, given the idea for Instagram, sell it for a billion dollars.

At the end of the day all you really have is your confidence in an idea, and confidence in the founder's ability to execute on it. Knowing whether or not an idea is stupid really requires a sort of omnipotence on your part. Was it the right time? Instagram would be a stupid idea in 1995. Did the founder execute well enough? Was the market too small? There are too many variables that go into deciding whether an idea is "stupid" or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> In 1978 I thought Bill Gates trying to sell BASIC interpreters for what was 90% of the cost of the computer to run them was a pretty stupid idea :-)

That said, one of my VC friends defines an Entrepreneur as someone who can take a stupid idea and make it successful. Sort of an homage to the whole idea that they can see something you cannot.

These days when I'm confronted by this sort of proposal I ask the person making the proposal to describe the world where their idea has succeeded. What is different about that world from today, and what is the same. What do people do in that world that they do differently now or can't do at all. And perhaps more importantly what do they do today which they no longer have to do.

If you can paint that picture in enough detail you can figure out who is going to be working against this person and who is going to be cheering this person on, you might get a sense of how much work is between here and there and the kinds of people needed to do that work. And if you know this person well you might be able to guess whether or not they are up for that, or perhaps more importantly, committed enough.

<comment><USER14> I thought bottled water was idiotic "Who's gonna pay that for water ? ! ? Gone in six months." And phone sex lines. "1.99$ first minute, $.99 each additional minute? Please!" In six months their rates doubled. Business models can be hard to judge.

<comment><USER15> Both of those are very well-studied business models, though:

1\. sell to the lonely and impulsive who are willing to trade money for attention (Also see: therapists, people who run cons on the elderly, everything else involving real interaction with a woman in the sex industry); additionally, take advantage of the sunk-cost bias to keep people after they would have otherwise "passed their limit" (Also see: casinos)

2\. run advertising campaigns that separate the world into "good/beautiful/healthy/upper-class people" and "bad/ugly/disgusting/lower- class people" by which kind of products they use, then position yourself as the most convenient/eminently-consumable product in the "good people" product class. (Also see: deodorant, diamonds, hybrid cars)

<comment><USER16> can you give any example for deodorant? I mean I know diamonds are bullshit and hybrid gas cost equally much to produce as to use oil, but deodorant? If you don't use it, you stink, right?

<comment><USER17> If you take shower once a day (and after sport), you do not stink so much compared to a smoker.

<comment><USER18> Er, well throwing in "compared to a smoker" is a bit of a cheat... but body odor depends a lot on the person. I've known some people that could go ages without showering and still seem (and smell, even in close proximity) as fresh as a daisy, but others that _always_ seemed to have an obvious, er, presence, daily shower or no.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Amusingly, I've had the opposite problem: I see some things, think they are the best ideas ever and then watch them fizzle away.

Perhaps the largest example of this would be Wave. When I first heard about Google Wave, I was incredibly impressed and immediately signed up for the beta. I really did think it would replace email and IM--it was an elegant solution that did both, at the same time. I then played around with it, rather liked it and even got some friends to use it. I was still trying to use it well after almost everyone gave up on it.

I was rather disappointed in its ignominious decline and eventual death.

I also really liked webOS. All your apps would just be web apps! It would be great. It wasn't.

I really loved the Zune HD. It had one of the best interfaces I had ever seen and was incredibly capable for its price. I still have mine, and I still like it, mostly. I've had people on the subway ask me about it simply because they didn't know what it was :P.

I thought Gnome 3 was awesome and a gigantic step forward from Gnome 2. You could customize your entire environment, all in JavaScript. And yet almost nobody I know uses it. Unity may have gotten panned by internet critics, but at least plenty of people I know use it. Gnome 3? Maybe one person.

A disproportionate number of the things that I get _really_ excited about-- rather than just interested in--seem to fizzle out. Maybe it's just selection bias, of course. I imagine the contrast between my expectations and reality make things stand out more. But it does seem that the more enthusiastic I am about something the more likely it is to flop.

Right now, the technology that I'm really excited about in a very similar way is Rust. I hope it breaks this rather annoying trend! It's basically the only new programming language that I genuinely like and don't view as a waste of time and space. I honestly think it will take off, but that's what I thought about all the other examples too.

I guess this doesn't have much to do with the actual article. It's just a lament about my own misplaced enthusiasm. But it does feel better to have written about it :P.

<comment><USER20> Man, you have a veritable talent for liking half-baked ho-hum stuff!

I mean:

1) Google Wave -- a confused mess of a mail/im/web/social offering that didn't exactly knew what it was and solved non problems.

2) Gnome 3 -- Gnome 2 had languished for years. Why would 3 change that, especially since most of the changes planned were incremental ho-hum stuff combined with arbitrary rewrites of core technologies sure to take them years to complete?

3) Zune. Nuff said.

<comment><USER21> What a mean-spirited and off-base comment. "Nuff said"? The Zune guys were 6 years ahead of the rest of the business -- their UI & UX design work became the basis for Windows Phone, Windows 8/RT and Xbox today. Zune failed because it was an expensive MP3 player launched when MP3 players as a category were being consumed by more capable general purpose devices, not because it was half-baked.

<comment><USER20> > _"Nuff said"? The Zune guys were 6 years ahead of the rest of the business > -- their UI & UX design work became the basis for Windows Phone, Windows > 8/RT and Xbox today._

Notice how you say that "The Zune guys were 6 years ahead of the rest of the business" and "it was an expensive MP3 player launched when MP3 players as a category were being consumed by more capable general purpose devices" (so, behind the rest of the business). It can't be both.

The whole product/ease of use/market/ecosystem etc (which is what matters) was subpar. And the market had much better products already.

Also, I'm not sure why you tout the Zune UI/UX work either. The only thing it had going for it was the visual look, not the feel or the interaction. So it was mostly a pretty graphic design, not a great UX. Same for Metro/Windows 8. It's not like that got any good reviews. Mostly a mismatch of traditional Windows and an out of place, and quite restricting and ill-thought touch UI. Oh, and it's not like Windows Phone got anywhere either. Nice looks, as a concept, but they forgot that design is how it works -- not how it looks.

<comment><USER21> /strong disagree

Zune & Zune HD had extremely favorable reviews, both from critics and customers. It was a solid product with a solid ecosystem. Engadget's review recommended it primarily on the Zune Pass and Zune Marketplace components. CNET called it "the best portable music and video experiences money can buy", while highlighting the subscription music integration. PC Mag's review called it "the best PMP you can buy outside the iTunes universe". This sentiment was industry-wide. There was nothing half-baked about it; that's not why it failed in the marketplace.

<comment><USER22> The only thing I remember about Zune's reviews were everyone talking about how much the brown one looked like dog shit. Oh and how Zune is some kind of anti- Semitic slur. Oh, and how hilariously bad the tagline "Welcome to the [...ice cream...?] social" was. Hah, and I almost forgot that sharing content with other Zune owners was called 'squirting'. Classic.

It also didn't really help Microsoft that the only enthusiastic adopters of Zune were Apple haters that didn't have iPods but desperately wanted some piece of technology to develop an emotional attachment to.

I distinctly remember my friend's boyfriend (now ex-) making snarky comments about my iPod, then picking up a Zune and making remarks like "it's already more popular than the iPod," and other quips that were laughable even THEN.

Funny, I also _knew_ I hadn't read a single good review from a reputable source, and I read Engadget a lot back then. They said the Zune sucked:

<http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/15/zune-review/>

"We've got things we like, and things we don't; rough edges to go right along with the well thought-out niceties. We came away underwhelmed and not at all surprised -- and why? The expectations were for Microsoft to deliver a "Microsoft" player and system; maybe not too shabby looking, but not very usable, and definitely bug-ridden."

Also this hilarious play-by-play where Ryan couldn't even get the damned software to install:

[http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/installing-the-zune- sucke...](http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/13/installing-the-zune-sucked/)

Oh, and that glowing PCMag review you've generated from your nether-regions?

<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2054204,00.asp>

"When we tested the Zune market place the day of the launch, the store refused to let us log in, but the company seems to have worked out the bugs now."

"So to buy one song you need to pony up at least $5. This is irritating."

"The Zune software works pretty well, but the content offerings are nowhere near as robust as iTunes."

"We also found the battery life also a bit disappointing."

"If Microsoft can boost its battery life, broaden the video support, and make it easier to download podcasts, the Zune could provide some healthy competition to the iPod. Until then, the iPod will continue to reign supreme."

Zune failed because it failed to even be a _good_ ripoff the iPod.

<comment><USER21> Some civility, please?

> Oh, and that glowing PCMag review you've generated from your nether-regions?

The quotes were quotes, you can search them to see where they came from.

<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2351538,00.asp>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The moral of this isn't that stupid ideas are good. It's that unfamiliar insights can be hard to understand and recognize, even for smart people. The right question to ask when confronted with something new isn't "What's wrong with this?" It's "What's the most interesting new insight(s) here?" A lot of smart people like to ask the first question at the expense of the second, and that's a mistake.

</comment><comment><USER24> There are so many things that seemed like a stupid idea to me:

\- Seinfeld: Who is this guy, really?

\- Frasier: Come on, a spinoff? (So, I didn't realize spinoffs were a thing)

\- Twitter: Haiku and vanity plates for the Internet.

\- Jeni's Splendid Ice Cream: Salty Caramel, you've got to be kidding me. I don't want salty ice cream.

\- Arrested Development: Wait, Jason Bateman. He was so bland on The Hogan Family.

\- There's Something About Mary: Their promo seemed ripped off the Zelda commercials, or that's how I felt.

\- Blogging (Well, Live Journal): Do I really care what other people are doing?

\- Scrubs: I don't know, I just didn't like the idea.

\- Freaks and Geeks: How dare they try to explain what it was like to be adolescent me?

\- McGriddles: Sausage, syrup and pancakes?

\- Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Slow animals doing karate makes no sense.

The only common thread I can find in these things is me. I have no idea why I had negative, visceral reactions to these things. It's gotten to the point where I try to pay special attention when an idea causes me to have this reaction.

<comment><USER25> Salted caramel has always been and will always be awesome.

Another deceptively awesome dessert is chocolate with pepper in it. Sounds weird, but its actually one of the original ways that cocoa was enjoyed.

What kills me about ice cream is the immense popularity of all of the stupid "Ben and Jerry's" style knock-offs that use a 10:1 candy:ice cream ratio. When I want to eat ice cream, it doesn't mean that I really want a candy bar.

<comment><USER24> It sure is. Jeni's Ice Cream also does some crazy stuff with pepper (Queen City Cayenne). I know she didn't invent the concept, but she does a heckuva job in the execution.

Totally agree on the "Ben and Jerry's" comment. I want _really_ good ice cream first and foremost. If you can add a touch of something delightful to enhance the flavor, perfect. I feel the same way about cheese cake.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Ha, I still think Vine and Pinterest are stupid ideas. But, Pinterest at least has done a good job at making lazy, vapid, narcissism easy, and there's certainly demand for that. Not sure how you monetize it (is Pinterest?), but they have a lot of users.

I'm not sure Vine is yet a "success". I don't see a lot of activity there yet. My (completely biased and limited) litmus test for social apps is to see how many of my non-techie friends get on board and how quickly. With Facebook, Instagram, and even Pinterest, that was pretty quick. Vine seems to still be lagging. It's too much work for the payoff for most people, is my gut feeling.

<comment><USER27> _lazy, vapid, narcissism_

Care to elaborate? My interpretation of Pinterest is really "visual social bookmarking."

<comment><USER26> Sure.

The main use of Pinterest is to show your friends and everyone else what good taste you have. "Look at this collection of bridal dresses I like!" "Check out all these vacation spots I want to go to!"

If you just wanted to collect photos of these things to give yourself ideas, you wouldn't need to share it with everyone. So you have an easy way to show everyone how cool all the stuff you like is, and by extension you are, with very little effort on your own part to actually create or realize (i.e. actually do work) those things into being. Sure there are elements of this across all social networks, but Pinterest has really distilled it down to the lowest common denominator point and click.

More of an indictment of society than of Pinterest itself I suppose. Pinterest or something like it was bound to show up sooner or later.

<comment><USER28> I can't help but feel this is just an uncharitable way to describe sharing ideas in general. My fiancee and I have gotten a lot of good use out of other people's good taste on Pinterest — we've found outfits to steal for the wedding, decorating ideas and lots of tasty recipes. How is this any more vulgar than sharing ideas in any other context?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I first met the AirBnB guys in 2007, at their _"unofficial Startup School after party"_. It was my first ever San Francisco startup party.

At the time, they were in the depths of their existential struggle. The "party" consisted of a few guys, a couple of liters of soda, and a few half- empty bottles of booze.

I remember talking to Joe and Brian, and hearing their pitch, and thinking: _"oh, so it's like couchsurfing, but for pay....good luck with that, guys"_.

Oops.

<comment><USER16> The only reason why people are willing to pay AirBnB is because of their audience (classic chicken&egg dilemma). But that audience was initially captured/harvested mostly through illegal or semi-legal ways (at least the ways that a decent human being wouldn't do that).

Lookup my previous posts I rant enough about AirBnB owners and their criminal past.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> This blog post reminds me of the Bessemer Venture Partners "Anti-Portfolio" -- a list of companies they passed on that subsequently became massively successful, including Apple, Google, and Intel.

They explain on their website: _"Our reasons for passing on these investments varied. In some cases, we were making a conscious act of generosity to another, younger venture firm, down on their luck, who we felt could really use a billion dollars in gains. In other cases, our partners had already run out of spaces on the year's Schedule D and feared that another entry would require them to attach a separate sheet."_

The whole web page is filled with similar, painfully funny explanations: <http://www.bvp.com/portfolio/antiportfolio>

</comment><comment><USER31> I more often experience the facepalm of watching an uncomplicated idea turn into a global sensation.

It's 2005 (hardly the distant technological past), and someone gets the idea for a site where you can store and watch videos. This is not some kind of radical technological innovation. This is not something beyond the ambit of current capabilities. This is not some brazen insight into the future. This is a site. Where you store videos. And watch them.

This, of course, is YouTube -- a site that was eventually sold to Google for $1.6 _billion_ dollars.

 _facepalm_

<comment><USER32> Well, to be sure the magic ingredient in Youtube's success was not the idea of uploading and watching videos. Many people were working on video sharing at that time (myself included). Youtube's secret was that the founders were already successful entrepreneurs who were well connected to VC's. Thus they had access to the capital that allowed them to lose ungodly amounts of money in the quest for growth.

<comment><USER33> Well, they also had an impressively cavalier attitude to copyright. Which was a major advantage.

But they also had excellent design sense. YouTube made uploading, viewing, and sharing content very, very easy. I did some consulting for a semi-competitor, so I paid a lot of attention to the market then. YouTube did a great job, which helped them get users, which surely didn't hurt with VCs.

Also, Crunchbase says they took $3.5m from Sequoia to start, and then $8m a few months later, and my recollection was that later tranche was really just to spend on bandwidth and servers. Google bought them a few months later. So they didn't lose what I'd call ungodly amounts of VC money; that's less than 1% of what Facebook received before IPOing.

<comment><USER32> Yes, I should have mentioned the copyright issue. The Napster lawsuits were still fresh in people's memory, and I'm sure a lot of entrepreneurs and and VC's were frightened of starting a video sharing site that was so openly being used to share copyrighted clips.

Youtube was acquired very quickly (within a year of public launch), so total losses were of course much lower than Facebook. But due to the bandwidth costs, YouTube had to burn a half-million+ a month very quickly after launch. Not many entrepreneurs are connected enough to get that kind of cash so quickly. Facebook could grow the site while spending only in the low five digits, without needing to quickly raise a large venture round.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Of course, the flipside is maybe more dangerous. "Hey, this sounds like a really stupid idea... then again, I thought pinterest sounded stupid too, and look how that turned out. Ok dubious business opportunity, here's my time/money!"

I'm being facetious of course, but the best deals are often the ones you don't make. The real question is how much of an impact an anomalous success story should have on the way you evaluate business opportunities.

<comment><USER35> Got animal house made.

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077975/trivia?item=tr0781514>

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Those _were_ stupid ideas. Nobody said stupid ideas couldn't be successful. In fact, I suspect an idea's stupidity has very little impact on its success one way or another.

Ideas I'd consider _not_ stupid include self-driving cars, Google Glass, and Bitcoin. Whether or not those are _good_ ideas is yet another discussion…

<comment><USER37> Smart ideas are very hard to implement. I always go for the stupid ideas because they also fail faster

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I am glad that these two guys truly believed in their ideas and where not discouraged by your lack buy-in to their vision.

I am often reminded of the 2001 me. When I was new developer building java web applications and full of vigor with no real responsibilities or expenses.

I was dead set on this idea to build a site where people could post links, pictures, text or whatever and it would be voted and categorically managed by the user community.

I shopped the idea and prototype around to people in my limited network and it was unanimous that no one would ever want to invest time into this concept. Discouraged, I scrapped the idea and accepted a position as the first non- partner employee at a consulting start-up that quickly imploded.

Years later reddit moves to the forefront of the internet with striking resemblance to my original plan.

My fault because I did not stick to my guns. The idea that my application could have been half as popular as reddit is unlikely but it taught me a lesson, sometimes you've got to trust your gut, even if the people you trust cannot see your vision.

</comment><comment><USER39> If you had told me 5-6 years ago that Twitter would be one of the top social media platforms and have 500 million registered users, I would have been completely flabbergasted.

<comment><USER40> Exactly.

I always picture myself in the following situation: A guy comes into my office in 2005, and says: "Uhm, excuse me, we're looking for investors in our new great product. It's for sending messages!" - "You mean, like email?" - "Yes. Except, you only have 140 characters." - "Err?" - "Oh, and you can't determine who will receive the message." - "Excuse me?" - "Yes, that's right. Would you like to invest?"

I would have laughed that guy out of my office back then...

...and now he'd be laughing at me.

Thus I'm very glad, no-one ever comes to my office in real life.

The End.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Survivor bias? How many ideas has he thought were stupid, and then they went nowhere?

</comment><comment><USER42> In all fairness, Pinterest still looks like a stupid idea. Like Twitter. Like Instagram.

Stupid is popular, though. You don't need to build more than the most mundane of the things to have a popular product.

</comment><comment><USER43> A well-written humblebrag.

<comment><USER44> Ain't nobody humblebrag like Dustin Curtis humblebrags.

<comment><USER22> \- 309 points and 108 comments \- comments about the "vapid" and "useless" nature of Pinterest and Vine \- absolutely no discussion about how there's no takeaway from the post aside from "I'm so important that I blew off two of these successful guys."

I was really expecting some kind of goal that he'd set for himself or way to improve his pessimistic attitude. Oh well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I felt the same way about Wikipedia at first. An encyclopedia that _anyone_ can edit? What could possibly go wrong?

I thought Twitter was a solution looking for a problem too. Interestingly, Twitter's usefulness (at least for me) stems from it's popularity rather than its content. Pretty much everyone I care about listening to is there, but most of the tweets that I'm interested in link me to some place that isn't Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER46> I think a big issue with social network ideas is just that there's so much chance involved.

Maybe 1 in 100 that have a solid idea and strong execution are going to achieve the critical mass they need for success. It really just comes down to achieving trendiness, which though it can be engineered to some extent and depends to some extent on quality and uniqueness, is still fraught with chance and ultimately depends whether a product happens to appeal to the particular whims of enough people with above average influence simultaneously enough to create momentum and buzz. A few missing links in that chain can sink the ship, while catching the right eye in the right way can ensure global adoption.

So having a negative attitude toward them all is safe in the sense that you'll almost always be right, and you'll be constantly reinforced in your beliefs. But since startup investment is a game of long shots, like most +EV gambling games, an investor shouldn't be focused on the absolute probability of success but on the chance of success * the potential value.

</comment><comment><USER47> The key to success is not in the idea itself, but rather the execution of the idea. The idea is only a multiplier to the level of success.

</comment><comment><USER48> I feel this way about almost all consumer web services.

Nothing is better than irc, usenet, MUDs, and email/lists, with the exception of making things mobile, detachable/multi device, more secure, and I guess supporting non Latin alphabets. There are still a few products missing from the perfect Internet (a great usenet/forum replacement, a way to run individual agents in the background, a way to great all communications as filter ably as email, and a great payment system), but I'm fine without another catalog sharing site, etc.

I accept that consumer services could become popular, but I have no way to predict it, and once they have traction, they are expensive investments. I am kind of at a loss as to how one could be a high value add investor in the seed consumer space without just focusing on founders nearly exclusively.

</comment><comment><USER49> I had a similar experience when I was 14 years old. At the time I was running a very popular trivia web site that had been featured on Yahoo and in a few magazines. A guy e-mailed me and said he liked my site. He asked if he could pay me a small fee to run a banner ad for his new business. I told him I appreciated the offer, but I didn't think it was allowed under the Geocities terms of service.

I was really into discovering new web sites at the time and had not heard of this company. I looked at the guy's site to see what it was about. I remember thinking it was ugly design and a stupid idea. Not much longer after that, the company began to take off. The guy that had e-mailed me was Pierre Omidyar and the site was EBay. I've tried to look at new businesses with an open mind since then.

</comment><comment><USER50> We built an app that 'listens' to social media and closely correlates with the S&P 500 <http://elite.kredstreet.com/all> (zoom in to see the correlation) You have no idea how many people have ignored us along the way and yet our signal will be used by high frequency traders to trade the stock market. Talking to investors often reminds me of this gem... <http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7203877/fundraising>

EDIT: someone just emailed me and said this was stupid. LOL

</comment><comment><USER51> Reminds me of 'How my brain kept me from co-founding Youtube' (<http://prog21.dadgum.com/39.html>)

The idea that people were going to push around 500k images (Flickr) or even more insane, videos was crazy when it first started happening. Remember how long it took to download QuickTime or RealPlayer videos, and how bad the quality was? Now people are streaming HD music videos on our PHONES just to listen to it while they drive to work. They don't even watch the video.

</comment><comment><USER52> Ideas I thought were stupid when I first heard them:

1) eBay - people are going to buy from random people they don't know? and bid against other people they don't know? Auctions will be rigged and I won't get my stuff. Stupid.

2) Netflix - they are going to send DVD's in the mail and I am going to mail them back? And then I have to wait for it to get to me? Aren't people going to steal the DVD's and damage them? Won't it cost too much for them to make a profit? Why don't I just go to Blockbuster? Stupid.

</comment><comment><USER53> I wonder how honest Dustin was to Ben and Dom. It's entirely possible that his negative feelings about each product helped drive it further. Sometimes criticism is more important than praise. I would rather someone call my product stupid - and point out why - than to just say, "Yea, it's okay I guess."

To Ben and Dom's credit, I have a feeling both saw Dustin's apathy, read it correctly as apathy, and used that to either strengthen their products, or their story, or both.

</comment><comment><USER54> In 2008/2009 I was browsing Brian Gossett's website <http://since78.briangossett.com/> . Back then he had a digital mood board, which was simply a giant collection of JPG files on a white background with appropriate spacing. I saw these same mood boards on other websites - <USER2> belong to designers. Some things hit me while browsing that website.

Wouldn't it be awesome if there was a service that let you...

      - easily bookmark content from the web onto your personal "mood board",
        probably using a booklet.
      - organize that content into collections
      - share it with a social network built around the original idea.

I shit you not, even my original design (which was mainly white on white) looked like Pinterest. I quit on it because I couldn't program at all.

I've had multiple experiences since where I thought of something and then something similar either already exists or it shows up soon after. The Pinterest example was the most extreme though, because I really had a copy of Pinterest (minus the identity ofc) in my mind and on paper. What this taught me is that I have a brain that is capable of thinking up stuff that is apparently wanted [1] and as such it has boosted my confidence. At the end of the day, the person who wins is the person who executes. Execution is key.

[1] Allow me to be very careful here. I may suffer from cognitive bias causing me to discount the amount of ideas that I've had that are probably absolutely shit, but in my own defence I'm the first person to shoot down my ideas. Also, knowing what the market wants requires you to test your assumptions. I'm well aware of this.

<comment><USER55> Even if you could have coded Pinterest, that's just the beginning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Every killer idea is stupid until success betrays its obviousness. Most inspired ideas are probably stupid. And finally, many ideas are just plain stupid. The trick is to ignore your gut reaction and ask yourself, "If this amazingly stupid idea is executed perfectly, is there a real market for this?" Women "pinning" their desires? Check. People sharing incredibly easy-to- compose video? Check.

Don't confuse the dancer with the dance.

</comment><comment><USER57> >I want to make an app for browsing catalogs. It's like a fashion catalog, but you can organize and share outfits

Is this really a fair description of Pinterest today though? Maybe as originally described it _is_ a dumb idea.

Vine, on the other hand, is really awesome and Curtis saw it right then, but was more worried about how it would find popularity rather than whether it was a "good" idea.

<comment><USER58> That seems to be pretty much how my wife uses pinterest. Outfits and gardening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> "I'm not sure if there's any lesson here other than a warning against arrogance, but I have two stories to share."

Of course there is. You mentioned it yourself!:

"The future is extremely hard to see through the lens of the present, and it's very easy to unconsciously dismiss the first versions of it as frivolous or useless. Or as stupid ideas."

</comment><comment><USER60> What I generally dislike with these articles is that someone quickly draw the conclusion "never criticize, always believe in the idea, even if it seems stupid at first sight"

And of course, I find that terribly wrong. The author did not hint that at all (which I appreciate), however, but I still believe many will think this.

The point is that you must carefully examine each idea before jumping to a judgement. Do not dismiss the bad points. Just think it through. It wont work every time, because you're not perfect, and because you don't have all elements/cards in your hands (unless you can see the future and read people's mind, of course). All you can do is a best guess. Obviously, the author is either very unlucky, either bad at doing the best possible guess.

</comment><comment><USER61> After about two decades in 'new media' I've seen and been part of some rather stupid ideas too. Off the top of my head: \- business card cd-roms: I was working on rights for Canada at one point \- Flash vs. Director: I was a Director guy and thought Flash was stupid; but it sure had it's day vs. Director \- Digital Signage: I had worked out a couple prototypes using CRT monitors and Mac LC pizza boxes installed in integrated cases with a modem for both control and new content. All controlled with a slick little Director application \- A chat program that used proximity and interest matching to bring people together. Prototype was pretty cool for 1998 :-)

There are probably some others, but I love stupid ideas, they make things interesting.

</comment><comment><USER62> I thought Twitter was stupid when it came out. "Why would any one choose to limit themselves to 140 characters? Also the name is dumb and childish. 'tweet'? Who wants to 'tweet'? I'm a grown man, I don't want to 'tweet...' etc."

I still don't know why Instagram is a thing.

<comment><USER63> I could never take a good picture. I used Instagram for the first time and it was fast, so easy, and I was actually proud of the interesting pictures I could take (not necessarily to share widely, but at least for myself). Instagram got someone like me, who never carried a camera in his life except for when I was kid holding a camera for my parents on vacation, to actually use their phone as a camera.

<comment><USER62> Ok, that makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> But really. Did these entrepreneurs really understand what they were building at the time?

Is it the case that these people articulated the best case for their products and businesses when Dustin saw introduced to these projects in their infancy?

Developing a product, and the right pitch is an evolutionary process, and it may just very well be the case that Dustin encountered them too early.

He may very well be at fault for thinking these ideas were stupid at the time, but then again he might very well not be.

Being introduced to a work in progress is always a negotiation. Asking the right questions is part of it, and on the flip side, having an interlocutor who has some sense of how to answer your questions.

Also, some ideas are just stupid.

</comment><comment><USER65> > The future is extremely hard to see through the lens of the present

And the past is hard to see without the lens of hindsight warping things. A decision might look silly in the face of information from the future, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong decision at the time. It wasn't. You made the rational play and you happened to lose. Your information was just incomplete. And unlike the founders who ended up winning, you had no incentive to assume the gaps would be filled in with magic traction and a bag of money.

</comment><comment><USER66> Several years ago, I was reading a blog by a well known tech entrepreneur. He was describing his new project, a way for people to post their everyday life actions in 140 characters or less, so they could tell their friends they were going to the store, or what they had for lunch. I thought, what a stupid idea, only the vainest self-absorbed people would share such minute details of their life. His project was called Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER67> I think this happens because we're poor judges of character. Yes, there's many bozos out there, but if you ask enough questions you will be able to differentiate them.

I'm still working on this, but I've seen that if you put aside your preconceptions and try to understand the product that is being showed to you, using it, asking a lot of questions and really giving yourself some time for big picture conversation, you are able to tell them apart.

</comment><comment><USER11> However. Its not because its popular that its not stupid.

</comment><comment><USER68> At first I expected this to be a post about svbtle and all of the resistance and pushback Dustin received when he first showed us his new "blog" design and tried to explain his vision. Things seem to be picking up on that front and the content is fairly good.

Can we get an iPad or web app with an easier way to explore and stumble through "magazine articles" without knowing who or what we are looking for?

</comment><comment><USER69> It may not be that the ideas are 'stupid' per-se. It's just that we tend to underestimate how complex some tasks are for ordinary people.

I mean, I could take thousands of pictures and automate the process of applying photoshop filters and uploading them as they arrive - and I bet most of you could do it too, perhaps in some even cooler way. That'd be just black magic for most people.

</comment><comment><USER70> I still do this - it's something I'm actively trying to fix. I'm worse still when products never materialize into a full-fledged success, still seem mvp/alpha but provide enough interest and income to spin up a proper shop here and there.

I think the root of it, for me at least, is just a bit of envy staring down at me from my shelf of half-completed and less interesting ideas.

</comment><comment><USER71> This is simply a vehicle for the author to show off about how he was consulted by well-known startups before they were big. These articles by dcurtis are a very ugly portrait of San Francisco tech culture. For example it beggars belief that this one was not written as a parody: <http://dcurt.is/the-best>

</comment><comment><USER72> As people have already said, this is a ridiculous case of survivor bias and to be fair, they are kind of stupid ideas. One is basically bookmarks, but with a nice UI and sharing, and the other is a kind of poorly made way to share short video clips. I met a kid making a video sharing app that was miles better just last week.

</comment><comment><USER73> I'll confess something similar, but a bigger whiff on my part.

Wifi was becoming common when I entered college. Around that time, laptops were underpowered, especially compared to desktops.

I thought wifi was a fad. After all, you generally had to plug your laptop in after 2 hours. What was the big deal about a cable for network too?

</comment><comment><USER74> Curtis was right about Pinterest though.

<comment><USER75> I guess I'm missing what you mean, could you elaborate? What I got was that "a 20-something guy" reached a target market that he was not a part of, and did very well at it too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> I like the first line on the last paragraph - "The future is extremely hard to see through the lens of the present."

What we do in the present can affect the future but we can not predict what will actually happen. There's too much variables involved.

</comment><comment><USER77> Arrogant? Yes, if you thought you could figure out that they would succeed or not based on one conversation.

The point of this entry is really: as an entrepreneur, push forward independent of what people who are not you target customer say/think.

</comment><comment><USER78> I've had this happen to me a few times. These days I don't even get the stupid ideas in the first place anymore. So I guess I don't have to feel so bad about missing the opportunities now. There aren't any!

</comment><comment><USER79> Dustin, let's meet at The Creamery. I gotta stupid idea to show you :)

</comment><comment><USER80> Stupid idea doesn't mean it's not gonna make money. Great idea doesn't mean it's gonna make money. It's damn near impossible to predict what the public is gonna like.

</comment><comment><USER81> I'd have dismissed the facebook idea if zuckerberg would've came to me in the beginning. There were myspace, hi5, orkut and a few other already on the market.

</comment><comment><USER82> In the early 1980s, CompuServe's marketeers thought the CB Simulator was dumb. It brought in most of the money. Here we are in 2013 and there's Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER83> It's a mistake to relate the stupidity of an idea to its potential for success. And yet even with success they can remain stupid and you can remain right.

</comment><comment><USER84> This article highlights the few times he was wrong. But what about all the lunches where he left thinking 'what a stupid idea' and was right.

</comment><comment> artumi-richard And lo! pg did spake! "Only the good ideas that look like bad ideas are left. All the good ideas that look like good ideas have been done."

</comment><comment><USER85> "Everything is obvious once its successful. Big wins come when you can spot something before its obvious to everyone else." -ev williams.

</comment><comment><USER86> There are no stupid ideas.

Except the really stupid ones, of course.

</comment><comment><USER87> I think the key point isn't if an idea stupid or smart. It seems to me the key point is more like how you execute the idea.

</comment><comment><USER88> Well, between Pinterest and Vine demos - how many times you were actually right about other, really stupid ideas? :)

</comment><comment><USER89> Ha! I've heard a lot of stupid ideas and none of them have made a dollar!

</comment><comment><USER90> Very well argued indeed. I'm glad someone shares the same thoughts as me.

</comment><comment><USER91> I just Kudos'd all your articles just because the button is so awesome :)

</comment><comment><USER92> I felt the same way about twitter. I also still think I was right :-)

</comment><comment><USER93> So what are the other two ideas?

</comment><comment><USER94> if someone i respect says something stupid, its probably not.

this is why signaling is so important.

</comment><comment><USER95> I know the feeling. For me it was in the stock market. I had a chance to invest a substantial amount in gold about 13 years ago with someone who wanted to dump his gold stocks at a discounted price. I scoffed at the idea and thought it was stupid. Well, we all know how that turned out....</comment>


Do you hate daily commute to Office/College? - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/do-you-hate-daily-commute-office-varun-verma?trk=mp-author-card <comment><USER2> Although interesting to read, and I identify with the issues listed, I feel the author should have explained up front that this is a promotional article for his new service/app[1].

[1] Which I don't have a problem with per se. Just not a fan of dressing up promotional press releases as blog posts.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Jaruzel thanks for quickly coming up with the response. The main objective is to list all the problems and how people try to solve their problems . Telling them a way to solve all the problems they are facing in the end i would not say its a promotional post :) You talk about any product (software/hardware)or any service that can help solve any problem in every post here. So they are not promotional if they are teaching you something or helping you out :)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which books have you read more than once? - <AUTHOR> For those into reading books, I think it is common practice to pick a new interesting book most of the time. However I want to know if there are books you found so valuable, you went back to it multiple times. Which book(s) was it, and how many times did you read it? What compelled you to reread it? <comment><USER7> Good Night Moon - 187 times

The Cat In The Hat - 200 times

The Very Hungry Caterpillar - 85 times

But seriously, im on my third re-read of Extreme Ownership by Jocko Willink and Leif Babin, In my opinion its the best book about leadership ever written.

<comment><USER8> The secret of writing childrens' books is to write something that an adult can read 200 times without going insane. You've got to put in something that the adults will smile at.

For slightly older children, try "The Bravest Ever Bear".

<comment><USER9> Boom, boom, boom, etc from The Little Mouse, the Red Ripe Strawberry, and the Big Hungry Bear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The Bible (technically working on my 2nd cover-to-cover readthrough, but have read individual books in it many times, especially the Gospel of Matthew).

All of Kafka's novels, but especially "The Castle".

Several of PKD's novels: "The Man in the High Castle", "Through a Scanner Darkly", "Ubiq"

"The Silmarillion" (when I was a young adult)

Douglas Adams' "Dirk Gentley's Holistic Detective Agency" (when I was a teenager)

<comment><USER11> Don't you feel The Man in the High Castle could be so much better? The premise was great and the context was great, but I could never relate to the main story.

<comment><USER10> How would you improve Man in the High Castle? Like many PKD books it presents a premise which seems, naively, like a veritable paper mill that you could churn out endless books from--and then barely goes anywhere with it. That's part of PKD's style. Yes, the High Castle universe could be made to churn out whole series of formulaic literature, but it would be just that, formulaic. Go write it yourself--you don't need PKD to write it for you, once he's given you the premise.

It's like Kafka said. If you try to make a river too large, it will overflow and you'll end up with mud. There's a certain size at which a river is just right, and any more just detracts from it.

<comment><USER11> It's not about the river size. Do androids dream of electric sheep? has an amazing premise and a good "main" story.

I don't want a full universe explaining every point; just a compelling story to drive the Man in the High Castle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Dune by Frank Herbert. This is a book I first read as a young teenager, but every time I re-read it every few years at a somewhat different point in my life, I get a different sense of it, maybe more based on where I am in my life and what is going on in the world. That for me is what makes a book endlessly re-readable: you always find something new in it. It is packed with all kinds of references and allegories to so many parts of our world, but in a way that still seems like its own world.

<comment><USER11> Just finished Dune last month, that book was on another level. Ahead of its time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I find myself re-listening to large portions of my audible library fairly often. I pick up so much more on additional read/listen-throughs.

I listen to or read Snow Crash at least once a year. I just enjoy most everything about it. Anathem required a couple listens, and a third listen was just for comfort food.

The Altered Carbon trilogy has depth and sublime world-building that I have now enjoyed at least a half dozen times.

I second mentions of Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency (and will mention The Long, Dark Tea Time of the Soul as well).

Ender's Game is also comfort food for me.

Breaking from the speculative fiction reco's above... The Power of Vulnerability (Brené Brown) is more lecture series than audiobook, but as for non fiction I've recently given multiple listens to, that tops the list.

I borrowed "Landline" from the local library, read it twice and then bought it so I could continue to read it when I want to. I think I was in just the right age group and life situation for this novel to hit home for me. Your mileage may vary, but IMO read it without knowing anything about it in advance if you're going to read it. That means don't read the back cover etc.

(Blind borrowing of books from the library is fun and can be eye opening, try it sometime! Most places, you can borrow eBooks and even digital audiobooks without even leaving your home as long as you have a library card.)

</comment><comment><USER14> So I know this is the opposite of what OP is asking, but I've taken the stance recently that I won't re-read another book. There are books that I would like to re-read, but they come at the opportunity cost of reading others.

A fellow traveler in a Guatemalan hostel broke it down to me like this: \- let's say as an avid reader, you're able to read 12 books a year. \- let's say you have 50 years of reading left in you, that means you have 600 books left to read in your lifetime

That back-of-the-napkin-math put things into perspective for me. So many great books to read, so little time. It's also for that reason that I have no qualms about putting a book down that I'm not into.

<comment><USER13> Breadth is nice, but depth is too. I tend to gain more from a second read than from a first, and also I can consume content where I know what to expect while in a different mindset and state of being than what I require to crack open and explore something all new.

But sure, everyone is different and does things their own way. If it works for you, that's great!

(Totally agree with putting down a book that isn't working for you. You have no obligation, in most cases, to any book. It can be freeing to realize this if it's not something that's already obvious!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> For many books that I find myself thinking about for years, or just that I enjoyed very much, I will revisit them later. They can be very revealing in how my perspective has changed or that I'll identify with completely different characters, or be awed by a passage that my earlier self overlooked.

Several that come to mind are

Heart of Darkness

Moby Dick

Robinson Crusoe

Pretty much any Chekhov story

Cathedral by Raymond Carver

</comment><comment><USER16> The book I've reread the most is The Odyssey. For a long time, I've read it once every year.

Another book I've read many times is Eco's Foucault's Pendulum.

I've read Asimov's cycle of Foundation many times. Don't know how many, actually.

I've also read several times some philosophy classics, particularly Plato's Symposium, Phaedrus, Apology and Republic.

Then there are many books that I've read at least twice, almost all considered classics (from 1984 to LoTR, Great expectations to Tom Sawyer, Crime and punishment to Twenty thousand leagues under the sea, etc).

<comment><USER17> If you like the Foundation series, you would probably like the three body problem trilogy. The scale(both in space and time) of the story is as big if not bigger than Foundation and the story is equally fascinating. Really good read!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Douglas Adam's "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency".

Probably the finest work of fiction ever written, and my favorite book of all time. You kind of have to read it twice, the end completely changes the interpretation of the entire rest of the book. It's great.

Avoid spoilers, and also avoid the TV versions - not even the same story, and quite disappointing. The audiobook version, read by Douglas Adams himself, is sublime.

<comment><USER19> I rather like the Max Landis Dirk Gently series, albeit as its own thing: a drastic reimagining only loosely inspired by the source material, similar to The Shining.

The 2 1/2 Dirk Gently books are Adams' finest in my opinion. HHGTTG is fun, but it doesn't hold together as a cohesive narrative in the same way. It's such a shame that we'll never know how the third book would have resolved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I tend to re-read my favorites every few years or so, my latest re-read was "A Deepness in the Sky" by Vernor Vinge. Lots to dig into in that book, but my favorite aspect of it is actually how he writes the two different cultures' points of view to skew the reader's perception of the (very) alien culture, only revealing exactly how uncomfortable humans would be around them late in the book.

</comment><comment><USER21> When I've needed to laugh I've read and reread:

Mark Twain's "Life on the Mississippi" and "Roughing It" as well as many short stories, esp. "My Watch", "Political Economy", "Journalism in Tennessee"

Also short stories from others: J.S. Perelman's "Strictly From Hunger", Alex Atkinson's "The Eyes of Texas are Upon You"

</comment><comment><USER22> The book I've read the most times is _Three Little Pigs_ or "the wolf book" as my son used to request it just about every night for an extended period of time. Children's books dominate my most read list. And they are very important books because what's important about reading a book is mostly the experience of reading and less about the content.

The content of a book isn't static. The content is a collaboration between the words on the page and the churning and whirring in the reader's head which isn't just churning and whirring because of the book and so varies from moment to moment and varies a lot from decade to decade.

Which is why children want to hear the same story every night and why young readers often read _Harry Potter_ several times rather than always seeking novelty in new books. Which was how I was as an early reader of science fiction.

Then for several decades I sought the novelty of new books mostly. Largely because that's how I thought of myself as an adult reader...and then one day I read _The Hobbit_ for the umpteenth time, but the first time since I was a child and out loud because my child was a child. It reads aloud very well and that inspired me to start rereading _LoTR_ (for the O(n * umpteen)th time and it's the literary equivalent of a 200 slide slide deck...but I digress.

The big thing is rereading is not reading the same book because of how much I've changed. I'm a much more experienced reader. Even excluding children's books I've probably read close to a hundred books through more than once.

I read _Blood Meridian_ cover to cover and then immediately reread the whole thing on two separate occasions about twenty years apart.

All four times it was different.

To me that's a good proxy for importance.

</comment><comment><USER23> _The Campus Trilogy_ ( _Changing Places_ , _Small World_ , _Nice Work_ ), by David Lodge.

 _DO IT!: Scenarios of the Revolution_ , by Jerry Rubin.

 _The Cuckoo 's Egg: Tracking A Spy Through The Maze Of Computer Espionage_, by Cliff Stoll.

 _The Hitchhiker 's Guide to the Galaxy_, by Douglas Adams.

 _Logicomix_ , by Apóstolos K. Doxiàdis and Christos Papadimitriou.

Other books that I strongly recommend can be found here (some of them are in French): [https://pablo.rauzy.name/miscellaneous.html#books](https://pablo.rauzy.name/miscellaneous.html#books)

Update: _Pirates de tous les pays_ , by Marcus Rediker is a translation of _Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age_ which you can thus read in English :). It really is an awesome read! After I finished it I immidiately ordered 5 more copies to give them to friends.

</comment><comment><USER24> There are a handful of books I have read more than once, and which I may still read more times. Offhand, I can think of:

1\. _The Mysterious Island_ \- Jules Verne - read 6 or 7 times if not more, dating back to when I was in about 6th grade

2\. _False Memory_ \- Dean Koontz - read probably 4 or 5 times

3\. _Neuromancer_ \- William Gibson - read 3 or 4 times, at least

4\. _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ \- George Orwell - read at least twice

5\. _The Four Steps to the Epiphany_ \- Steve Blank - read 2 or 3 times, skimmed parts many other times

6\. _Mastering The Complex Sale_ \- Jeff Thull - read 2 or 3 times

7\. _Crossing the Chasm_ \- Geoffrey Moore - read 2 or 3 times

8\. _Wellsprings of Knowledge_ \- Dorothy Leonard-Barton - read 2 or 3 times

9\. _Common Knowledge_ \- Nancy Dixon - read 2 or 3 times

10\. _Winning the Knowledge Transfer Race_ \- Michael English & William Baker - read 2 or 3 times

</comment><comment><USER25> The Kingkiller Chronicle.

Firstly, they're good books and are enjoyable to read a second time round.

Secondly, Rothfuss has laid down plot points like a Go player places stones. The second time reading through will join together disparate pieces of information that you wouldn't have connected together before, starting from very large revelations in the second reading of the first few chapters.

I know of other books that are so rich that you can appreciate new details on multiple readings, but none that re-contextualise the whole story with revelations hidden in plain sight.

Readings: (Name of the wind - 4 times, Wise Man's Fear 5 or 6 times - I like this one more for some reason).

<comment><USER24> By the time book three comes out, I'll have to re-read the first two, because I won't remember anything about what was going on at the end of book two.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "How Will You Measure Your Life?" by Clayton Christensen. Absolutely love this book and have read and listened to it multiple times. Really provides a fresh perspective on life and work.

</comment><comment><USER27> \- Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes (All 4 Novels and 56 short stories) --> read multiple times since childhood

\- "Be Here Now" by Ram Dass (read once and listened to audiobook twice)

\- Flatland by Edwin Abbot Abbot --> read multiple times to understand whats going on in different levels

\- Some PG Wodehouse stuff because it ages well (specifically the bibilical references)

\- Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie which is absolute verbal wizardry

\- Treasure Island by RLS which is a kids favorite for adventurism

</comment><comment><USER28> Some while ago I reread Richard Dawkins's The Extended Phenotype, which he has referred to as his favorite work. You could say it's the logical follow up on The Selfish Gene, quite technical and expert-oriented, but Dawkins is such a talented and lucid writer that anyone with enough intellectual thirst can follow the arguments. I regard it a piece of philosophy as much as a textbook about evolution.

</comment><comment><USER29> I've read most Discworld novels by Terry Pratchett 3 or more times.

Finite and Infinite Games, by James P. Carse is another philosophical favourite when it comes to getting something new each read through.

Book of Mirdad, which is like a modern take on the Abramelin, don't recall the author's name, but it's very much into the symbolic/mystic/esoteric ways and very revealing to that side without explicitly stating any "secrets"

First Law trilogy, by Abercrombie. This is what Gritty Fantasy should read like. It's got scenes in them that I want to reread the books just to get to. Really hope these would be made into a series or films, as the cinematography in them is already perfect. Without spoiling the first book as it's revealed early on; Logan Ninefingers is essentially a Barbarian, but throughout you get the feeling he's deeply afraid of that side. (If you've watched how Mike Tyson talked about his fear of that side in him on his podcast, this is essentially it...)

There's been other books as well, but these are the biggest reread-able ones for me.

</comment><comment><USER30> i recently re-read _the wisdom of crowds_ , ~15 years now since i first read it. still good, still relevant. there's even a section on how quickly SARS was identified in international collaboration despite no central, coordinating entity.

it's covertly a book about statistical reasoning, but with no dry statistical language, subversive in a way. we need more statistical reasoning in the world, particularly around risk assessment, to subdue fear and panic.

edit: as for fiction,

james clavell's _asian saga_ [0] series is entertaining historical fiction, which i've read twice.

pat conroy's southern portraits, particularly _the lords of discipline_ and _the prince of tides_ , both wrenching, haunting, and beautiful.

also in the historical/cultural fiction realm: _anna karenina_ , _crime and punishment_ , _a tale of two cities_ , _les miserables_.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Asian_Saga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Asian_Saga)

</comment><comment><USER31> Ender's Game and the "side-quel" Ender's Shadow.

Every single time I've reread either I've found some part of the book that resonates precisely with a situation I'm going through in my life. Even parts I thought didn't apply to me at the time, upon rereading struck a chord.

For example, when I was younger, I identified with Ender but as I've gotten older, I identify more with the adults in the book. Especially now that I have children.

On a side note, the 25th anniversary edition has an introduction that has some gems all of it's own. Notably, there is a line where Card mentions something along the lines of: when I was a child, I never thought of myself as being less of a person than an adult. I just thought of myself as a smaller adult person.

That has always stayed with me since I read it and have always tried to apply that mental model of childhood to any interaction I have with children. It has been particularly impactful now that I have my own children.

</comment><comment><USER32> Man's Search for Meaning - Viktor Frankel, it is his experience of how he managed to survive the concentration camps.

Book of Mormon

The Stormlight Archive series (Way of Kings, Words of Radience, Oathbringer) - Brandon Sanderson, I've heard it compared to the Kingkiller Chronicles in terms of depth, intricacies and overall masterfully executed plot but Sanderson is also one of the best authors at making characters real and captivating that I've ever met.

Mistborn Series (The Final Empire, Well of Ascension, Hero of Ages) by the same author as The Stormlight Archives and for the same reasons.

The Screwtape Letters - C.S. Lewis, even if you aren't religious it has helped me see so much clearly the tactics and obstacles that prevent me from being the person I want to be.

I've read quite a few more books more often but these are the books that I have reread multiple times because they have changed who I am and helped me recognize that each time I fall I can rise again a better man.

</comment><comment><USER33> Hobbit and Lord of the Rings - 3 or 4, including very recently. The latest time I appreciated his background as a writer and the stories behind the story much more. They're worth a reread as adults.

On the business side I read Deming's Out of the Crisis several times. The ideas are profound but the writing is mediocre so it took a few times for it to stick.

<comment><USER16> Check the commentary on LoTR military tactics, hardware, etc on [https://acoup.blog/](https://acoup.blog/), it's a hell of a rabbit hole to fall into :)

<comment><USER33> That's not a rabbit hole, it's a bottomless pit!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie

<comment><USER35> Yep. I would re-read it on a semi-regular basis as suggested.

I need to go back to it. Unfortunately my much loved copy (with highlights and underlines) was given to a family member so now I am left with my Kindle version.

I've also listened to the millennium version twice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I usually read good technical books twice. Recently did that for: Designing Data-Intensive Applications, DynamoDB Book.

<comment><USER37> Designing Data-Intensive Applications is probably one of the absolute best technical books I've read. I haven't done a second read through, but I can definitely see that being helpful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein

"Neuromancer" and sequels by William Gibson

"Slaughterhouse 5" by Kurt Vonnegut

I've read all of them dozens of times over. Hard to explain why, they speak my language, and help me understand myself and the world around me, kind of like my favorite bands do. Hard to put into words.

</comment><comment><USER39> A bunch of books: Leviathan Wakes by James S.A. Corey (as well as several of the sequels), American Gods by Neil Gaiman, The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi, The Magicians by Lev Grossman, Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie, Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling, The Three-Body Problem by Liu Cixin, and a bunch of others.

</comment><comment><USER40> These threads are posted a lot, but I still like reading the comments for new book recommendations if I see a match. Also, hopefully this can show people how great fiction is. I've seen comments that shun people for liking fiction compared to non.

For me:

Lonesome Dove

100 Years of Solitude

Catch-22

The Sellout (very relevant again)

East of Eden

Kafka on the Shore (and all the stories in Blind Willow, Sleeping Woman)

</comment><comment><USER41> "The problems of philosophy" by Bertrand Russell. ~8 times.

"The abolition of man" by "C.S. Lewis" 3 times.

"The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times" by René Guénon. 3 times, and planning to set a weekend for another re-read soon.

<comment><USER32> I've reread the Abolition Of Man recently and found his conjecture that there may yet come a time when using psychology and technology a small group of people may be able to control everyone else eerily reminiscent to the way ML is being used to custom craft ads that push one opinion or another.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> The Count of Monte Cristo (Robin Buss version)

</comment><comment><USER43> Adam Hall's Quiller series. Good to revisit every few years and the mechanism of building to a crisis, then starting after the resolution and backing up is fun. Not for everyone though as it's cold war vintage spy stuff. Feels real though, not like Hollywood versin of Bond. Banks of course, Use of Weapons is great. Just hit 51 and finally reading Dune now, so keep that in mind, but would also suggest Cryptonomicon as i have started it several times, put it down and then come back and had to start again several times.... but i find it interesting enough to keep trying!

</comment><comment><USER19> I used to read The Illuminatus! Trilogy [0] once every year or two, though that's slowed down; I feel like I've gotten something new out of it every time.

I'm now taking a second pass through Unsong [1], simply because I enjoyed the first read so much.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Illuminatus!_Trilogy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Illuminatus!_Trilogy)

[1] [http://unsongbook.com/](http://unsongbook.com/)

</comment><comment><USER44> I read East of Eden by Steinbeck twice. It's a long read, but a great story. In fact, I don't really remember any of the story, so perhaps a third read is in my future.

</comment><comment><USER45> Triumph And Tragedy of Lyndon B Johnson (his effectiveness to pass legislation fascinated me)

Harry Potter (comfort series)

Charlie Wilson's War (it's hilarious and informative),

Game Change (a sobering reminder of the 2008 election and how we got to today),

Lincoln's Melancholy (on his depression).

I've read lots of books twice, but the above are the only I can find in my library I've read 3 or more times. Outside of Harry Potter, I view the figures in those books most responsible for turning points in our nations history.

</comment><comment><USER46> I can tell you that I've _started_ Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs at least five times. Probably doesn't count.

</comment><comment><USER47> The Catcher in the Rye and Norwegian Wood. A goal is to read them both in Japanese, as the former was translated by the author of the latter.

</comment><comment><USER48> Harry Potter.

I read most of the tomes a few times and some parts as well.

I do not like everything but the overall atmosphere (especially in the first few books) is amazing.

</comment><comment><USER49> Catch-22. It's not at all related to tech, but it's the funniest book I've ever read and I feel it helps keep me grounded.

<comment><USER21> I second this one. A book good both for laughs and for a cynical but not entirely inaccurate look at organizations and human behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I read East of Eden every couple years. I find it settles me and makes me believe in the goodness of Humans every time I read it.

<comment><USER14> So this is one of the few books that I have re-read. First I read it in high school, secondly as an adult. I was severely let down. I'd go into details why, but I think this sums it up pretty well: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_Eden_(novel)#Reception](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_Eden_\(novel\)#Reception)

_timshel_

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality - great story and also quite a nice introduction to rationality. There's also an audiobook [https://hpmorpodcast.com/?page_id=56](https://hpmorpodcast.com/?page_id=56)

</comment><comment><USER52> The Dune series is so rich in ideas and imagery. I've read it (print and audio) more than 20 times.

</comment><comment><USER53> The Hobbit - Tolkien Wizard's First Rule (Sword of Truth Book 1) - <USER2> Faith of the Fallen (Sword of Truth Book 6) - Goodkind Ender's Game - <USER3> 1984 - <USER4>

I'm looking to read Asimov's Foundation series again. Maybe spend more time with Hyperion.

</comment><comment><USER54> The Power Broker

The excellent series on Lyndon Johnson by the same author as The Power Broker

The Three Body Problem series

</comment><comment><USER55> Joy of Clojure [https://www.manning.com/books/the-joy-of-clojure-second- edit...](https://www.manning.com/books/the-joy-of-clojure-second-edition)

</comment><comment><USER56> Code Complete - 2 times: clearly it's a good book. The selfish gene - 2 times - that's not programming wise, but it's an awesome book to get your thoughts rolling.

</comment><comment><USER57> I've read all of discworld by Terry Pratchett at least three times. I'm almost finished with my second sequential reading. It's comfort food in book form for me.

<comment><USER29> Second this.

In the ongoing protests etc. I've realised how much the stories about Vimes have shaped my ideas of what a policeman should be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson, every three years or so.

</comment><comment><USER59> The Dog Stars by Peter Heller and Neuromancer by William Gibson. Both of these I've read twice.

The Dog Stars held up well on my second reading. Neuromancer did not.

</comment><comment><USER60> 1984 -- my all-time fav book. I've read it more than 10 times, because it's a beautiful dystopian love story that moves me like no other.

</comment><comment><USER61> The sprawl (neuromancer etc) and the Jean le Flambeur (quantum thief) trilogies. Both are packed with very interesting concepts and characters.

</comment><comment><USER62> The Underachiever's Manifesto: The Guide to Accomplishing Little and Feeling Great

and

The Principles of Product Development Flow: Second Generation Lean Product Development

</comment><comment><USER63> Every book published by L. E. Modesitt, Jr. and Iain M. Banks (I need to make more of an effort to do the same for Iain Banks. :)

</comment><comment><USER64> Bible.

Even rereading the same chapter sometimes makes me discover something a wasn't aware of when reading the text before.

<comment><USER65> If you are into that, try learning Hebrew and join a Rabbi there are endless books and discussion interpreting the bible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> I and Thou by Martin Buber Finite and Infinite Games by James P. Carse On Having No Head by Douglas E. Harding

</comment><comment><USER67> Roger Zelazny's, the Amber series. I only like Corwin story arc. Must have read them 5 or 6 times...

</comment><comment><USER68> \- Sapiens \- Richard Dawkin's books

<comment><USER69> Would recommend checking out Guns, Germs, And Steel if you liked Sapiens. More grounded in research and less hypothetical story-telling on what drove human development in history.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan. It just is amazing in so many ways but it is hard to describe.

</comment><comment><USER71> The little prince. I don't count how many read anymore.

I'm not kidding either. Best book ever.

</comment><comment><USER72> The Dispossessed - Ursula K. Le Guin

Harry Potter - JK Rowling (re-read it all when the last book came out)

</comment><comment><USER73> \- Sapiens

\- The Lord of the Rings

\- Siddhartha

\- Chaos: Making a New Science

\- The Death Gate cycle books

\- Neuromancer

\- Head First Design Patterns

\- Valis

\- Dune

\- The name of the rose

I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones off the top of my head.

</comment><comment><USER74> "Island" \- Aldous Huxley.

"Principles" \- Ray Dalio.

"On the shortness of life" \- Seneca.

</comment><comment><USER75> Fiction: The Inimitable Jeeves by P.G. Wodehouse

Non-fiction: The War of Art by Steven Pressfield

</comment><comment><USER76> All the Ian M Banks Culture series. Neal Stephenson - <USER5>

</comment><comment><USER77> Jewish Wisdom for Business Success, Dune, Shoe Dog, On The Road

</comment><comment><USER78> The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster

Read it every year from 3rd grade to 8th.

</comment><comment><USER79> Zodiac by Neal Stephenson on audiobook about a dozen times.

</comment><comment> peter-m80 Various from Isaac Asimov. Specially from the robots saga

</comment><comment><USER80> The Razors Edge - Somerset Maugham

Siddhartha - Herman Hesse

The Hobbit - <USER6>

</comment><comment><USER81> Stranger in a strange land - Robert Heinlein

</comment><comment><USER82> The Disappearance of the Universe - 4 times

</comment><comment><USER83> "How to get what you want" by Raymond Hull

</comment><comment><USER84> Anna Karenina, 3x in two translations

Skunk Works

Intelligent Investor

Man Who Was Thursday

</comment><comment><USER85> AKIRA

</comment><comment><USER86> "Time Enough For Love", by Robert Heinlein. It's the life story of a man who lives 2,300 years.

</comment><comment><USER87> The Art of Electronics

The Hitchhiker

The Idiot

The Wealth of Nations

and sadly Concrete Mathematics... not because it is a bad book but because I suck at math.

</comment><comment><USER88> Invested by Charles Schwab.</comment>