id
int64 2
42.1M
| by
large_stringlengths 2
15
⌀ | time
timestamp[us] | title
large_stringlengths 0
198
⌀ | text
large_stringlengths 0
27.4k
⌀ | url
large_stringlengths 0
6.6k
⌀ | score
int64 -1
6.02k
⌀ | descendants
int64 -1
7.29k
⌀ | kids
large list | deleted
large list | dead
bool 1
class | scraping_error
large_stringclasses 25
values | scraped_title
large_stringlengths 1
59.3k
⌀ | scraped_published_at
large_stringlengths 4
66
⌀ | scraped_byline
large_stringlengths 1
757
⌀ | scraped_body
large_stringlengths 1
50k
⌀ | scraped_at
timestamp[us] | scraped_language
large_stringclasses 58
values | split
large_stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5,460 | far33d | 2007-03-21T18:49:14 | ABC trying new commercial formats | null | http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/business/media/21adco.html?ex=1332129600&en=2d17bc1021fb2f20&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss | 2 | 3 | [
5462,
5468
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,465 | dawie | 2007-03-21T18:55:45 | The Next Social Web | null | http://www.trailfire.com | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,471 | danw | 2007-03-21T19:38:29 | Interview with Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google: "You don't learn very much when you yourself are talking" | null | http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/03/interview_with_.html | 3 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,474 | amichail | 2007-03-21T19:52:32 | A place where you can see web 2.0 services being developed in real-time? | null | 3 | 5 | [
5475,
5477,
5478
] | null | null | invalid_url | null | null | null | null | 2024-11-08T16:37:59 | null | train |
|
5,476 | zaidf | 2007-03-21T19:59:59 | Web 2.0 is a great fish market....NOT | null | http://www.zaid360.com/?p=78 | 3 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,482 | volida | 2007-03-21T20:22:31 | I will tell you why it's so freaking hard for single founders: It's so freaking lonely | null | 17 | 36 | [
5494,
5514,
5503,
5493,
5690,
5490,
5644,
5497,
5526,
5484,
5580,
5491,
5501,
5519,
5565,
5563,
5517,
5566
] | null | null | invalid_url | null | null | null | null | 2024-11-08T16:37:59 | null | train |
|
5,487 | danw | 2007-03-21T20:30:59 | Tumblr: Blogging for the lazy | null | http://www.lifehacker.com/software/web-publishing/geek-to-live--instant-no+overhead-blog-with-tumblr-244915.php | 11 | 4 | [
5601,
5489,
6139
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,495 | far33d | 2007-03-21T20:46:13 | ignore, silly bookmarklet! | null | http://fareed.wordpress.com/wp-admin/index.php?page=stats | 1 | -1 | null | null | true | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,504 | herdrick | 2007-03-21T21:09:13 | Hardnosed negotiation HOWTO for hackers. | null | http://blog.tomevslin.com/2005/05/morph_of_a_nerd_2.html | 7 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,505 | Sam_Odio | 2007-03-21T21:18:40 | 4 reasons why startup secrecy is overrated | null | http://www.cambrianhouse.com/blog/startups-entrepreneurship/4-reasons-why-secrecy-in-a-startup-is-way-overrated/ | 5 | 0 | null | null | null | no_article | null | null | null | null | 2024-11-07T15:00:00 | null | train |
5,507 | Sam_Odio | 2007-03-21T21:19:17 | How to market your startup | null | http://onstartups.com/home/tabid/3339/bid/889/Pithy-Insights-On-Startup-Marketing.aspx | 6 | 1 | [
5751
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,509 | danielha | 2007-03-21T21:29:49 | PassPack: Holding Your Keys for the 2.0 Kingdom | null | http://www.profy.com/2007/03/22/passpack/ | 2 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,511 | danielha | 2007-03-21T21:30:25 | 2006 Web 2.0 Fundings Doubled to $844 million | null | http://blogs.business2.com/business2blog/2007/03/2006_web_20_fun.html | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | fetch failed | null | null | null | null | 2024-11-08T00:53:52 | null | train |
5,513 | far33d | 2007-03-21T22:09:53 | The Long Tail: Google's case against marketing | null | http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/2007/03/googles_case_ag.html | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,516 | Sam_Odio | 2007-03-21T22:44:16 | Tool to find a partner | null | http://www.buildv1.com/ | 2 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,520 | bootload | 2007-03-21T22:53:07 | Validation of YC approach? ~ another vc funding webapps only | null | http://www.startusup.com | 1 | 3 | [
5525,
5540
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,521 | abstractbill | 2007-03-21T22:55:54 | Startup Epicenter. March 27-29th, Mountain View | null | http://www.startupepicenter.com/ | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,523 | python_kiss | 2007-03-21T22:56:51 | Interview with Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google: "You don't learn very much when you yourself are talking" | null | http://iinnovate.blogspot.com/2007/03/eric-schmidt-ceo-of-google.html | 2 | 6 | [
5524,
5541
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,527 | sharpshoot | 2007-03-21T23:15:23 | Like puzzles? Puzpix.com - give us your feedback!! | null | http://puzpix.com/ | 6 | 15 | [
5528,
5805,
5531,
5579,
5984,
5557,
5530
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,529 | Sam_Odio | 2007-03-21T23:23:46 | Want a succesful startup? Just stay away from these... | null | http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html | 17 | 14 | [
5550,
5587,
5720,
5624,
5593
] | null | null | no_error | The 18 Mistakes That Kill Startups | null | null |
October 2006In the Q & A period after a recent talk, someone asked what made
startups fail. After standing there gaping for a few seconds I
realized this was kind of a trick question. It's equivalent to
asking how to make a startup succeed — if you avoid every cause of
failure, you succeed — and that's too big a question to answer on
the fly.Afterwards I realized it could be helpful to look at the problem
from this direction. If you have a list of all the things you
shouldn't do, you can turn that into a recipe for succeeding just
by negating. And this form of list may be more useful in practice.
It's easier to catch yourself doing something you shouldn't than
always to remember to do something you should.
[1]In a sense there's just one mistake that kills startups: not making
something users want. If you make something users want, you'll
probably be fine, whatever else you do or don't do. And if you
don't make something users want, then you're dead, whatever else
you do or don't do. So really this is a list of 18 things that
cause startups not to make something users want. Nearly all failure
funnels through that.1. Single FounderHave you ever noticed how few successful startups were founded by
just one person? Even companies you think of as having one founder,
like Oracle, usually turn out to have more. It seems unlikely this
is a coincidence.What's wrong with having one founder? To start with, it's a vote
of no confidence. It probably means the founder couldn't talk any
of his friends into starting the company with him. That's pretty
alarming, because his friends are the ones who know him best.But even if the founder's friends were all wrong and the company
is a good bet, he's still at a disadvantage. Starting a startup
is too hard for one person. Even if you could do all the work
yourself, you need colleagues to brainstorm with, to talk you out
of stupid decisions, and to cheer you up when things go wrong.The last one might be the most important. The low points in a
startup are so low that few could bear them alone. When you have
multiple founders, esprit de corps binds them together in a way
that seems to violate conservation laws. Each thinks "I can't let
my friends down." This is one of the most powerful forces in human
nature, and it's missing when there's just one founder.2. Bad LocationStartups prosper in some places and not others. Silicon Valley
dominates, then Boston, then Seattle, Austin, Denver, and New York. After
that there's not much. Even in New York the number of startups per
capita is probably a 20th of what it is in Silicon Valley. In towns
like Houston and Chicago and Detroit it's too small to measure.Why is the falloff so sharp? Probably for the same reason it is
in other industries. What's the sixth largest fashion center in
the US? The sixth largest center for oil, or finance, or publishing?
Whatever they are they're probably so far from the top that it would
be misleading even to call them centers.It's an interesting question why cities
become startup hubs, but
the reason startups prosper in them is probably the same as it is
for any industry: that's where the experts are. Standards are
higher; people are more sympathetic to what you're doing; the kind
of people you want to hire want to live there; supporting industries
are there; the people you run into in chance meetings are in the
same business. Who knows exactly how these factors combine to boost
startups in Silicon Valley and squish them in Detroit, but it's
clear they do from the number of startups per capita in each.3. Marginal NicheMost of the groups that apply to Y Combinator suffer from a common
problem: choosing a small, obscure niche in the hope of avoiding
competition.If you watch little kids playing sports, you notice that below a
certain age they're afraid of the ball. When the ball comes near
them their instinct is to avoid it. I didn't make a lot of catches
as an eight year old outfielder, because whenever a fly ball came
my way, I used to close my eyes and hold my glove up more for
protection than in the hope of catching it.Choosing a marginal project is the startup equivalent of my eight
year old strategy for dealing with fly balls. If you make anything
good, you're going to have competitors, so you may as well face
that. You can only avoid competition by avoiding good ideas.I think this shrinking from big problems is mostly unconscious.
It's not that people think of grand ideas but decide to pursue
smaller ones because they seem safer. Your unconscious won't even
let you think of grand ideas. So the solution may be to think about
ideas without involving yourself. What would be a great idea for
someone else to do as a startup?4. Derivative IdeaMany of the applications we get are imitations of some existing
company. That's one source of ideas, but not the best. If you
look at the origins of successful startups, few were started in
imitation of some other startup. Where did they get their ideas?
Usually from some specific, unsolved problem the founders identified.Our startup made software for making online stores. When we started
it, there wasn't any; the few sites you could order from were
hand-made at great expense by web consultants. We knew that if
online shopping ever took off, these sites would have to be generated
by software, so we wrote some. Pretty straightforward.It seems like the best problems to solve are ones that affect you
personally. Apple happened because Steve Wozniak wanted a computer,
Google because Larry and Sergey couldn't find stuff online, Hotmail
because Sabeer Bhatia and Jack Smith couldn't exchange email at
work.So instead of copying the Facebook, with some variation that the
Facebook rightly ignored, look for ideas from the other direction.
Instead of starting from companies and working back to the problems
they solved, look for problems and imagine the company that might
solve them.
[2]
What do people complain about? What do you wish there was?5. ObstinacyIn some fields the way to succeed is to have a vision of what you
want to achieve, and to hold true to it no matter what setbacks you
encounter. Starting startups is not one of them. The stick-to-your-vision
approach works for something like winning an Olympic gold medal,
where the problem is well-defined. Startups are more like science,
where you need to follow the trail wherever it leads.So don't get too attached to your original plan, because it's
probably wrong. Most successful startups end up doing something
different than they originally intended — often so different that
it doesn't even seem like the same company. You have to be prepared
to see the better idea when it arrives. And the hardest part of
that is often discarding your old idea.But openness to new ideas has to be tuned just right. Switching
to a new idea every week will be equally fatal. Is there some kind
of external test you can use? One is to ask whether the ideas
represent some kind of progression. If in each new idea you're
able to re-use most of what you built for the previous ones, then
you're probably in a process that converges. Whereas if you keep
restarting from scratch, that's a bad sign.Fortunately there's someone you can ask for advice: your users. If
you're thinking about turning in some new direction and your users
seem excited about it, it's probably a good bet.6. Hiring Bad ProgrammersI forgot to include this in the early versions of the list,
because nearly all the founders I know are programmers. This is
not a serious problem for them. They might accidentally hire someone
bad, but it's not going to kill the company. In a pinch they can
do whatever's required themselves.But when I think about what killed most of the startups in the
e-commerce business back in the 90s, it was bad programmers. A lot
of those companies were started by business guys who thought the
way startups worked was that you had some clever idea and then hired
programmers to implement it. That's actually much harder than it
sounds — almost impossibly hard in fact — because business guys
can't tell which are the good programmers. They don't even get a
shot at the best ones, because no one really good wants a job
implementing the vision of a business guy.In practice what happens is that the business guys choose people
they think are good programmers (it says here on his resume that
he's a Microsoft Certified Developer) but who aren't. Then they're
mystified to find that their startup lumbers along like a World War
II bomber while their competitors scream past like jet fighters.
This kind of startup is in the same position as a big company,
but without the advantages.So how do you pick good programmers if you're not a programmer? I
don't think there's an answer. I was about to say you'd have to
find a good programmer to help you hire people. But if you can't
recognize good programmers, how would you even do that?7. Choosing the Wrong PlatformA related problem (since it tends to be done by bad programmers)
is choosing the wrong platform. For example, I think a lot of
startups during the Bubble killed themselves by deciding to build
server-based applications on Windows. Hotmail was still running
on FreeBSD for years after Microsoft bought it, presumably because
Windows couldn't handle the load. If Hotmail's founders
had chosen to use Windows, they would have been swamped.PayPal only just dodged this bullet. After they merged with X.com,
the new CEO wanted to switch to Windows — even after PayPal cofounder
Max Levchin showed that their software scaled only 1% as well on
Windows as Unix. Fortunately for PayPal they switched CEOs instead.Platform is a vague word. It could mean an operating system, or a
programming language, or a "framework" built on top of a programming
language. It implies something that both supports and limits, like
the foundation of a house.The scary thing about platforms is that there are always some that
seem to outsiders to be fine, responsible choices and yet, like
Windows in the 90s, will destroy you if you choose them. Java
applets were probably the most spectacular example. This was
supposed to be the new way of delivering applications. Presumably
it killed just about 100% of the startups who believed that.How do you pick the right platforms? The usual way is to hire good
programmers and let them choose. But there is a trick you could
use if you're not a programmer: visit a top computer science
department and see what they use in research projects.8. Slowness in LaunchingCompanies of all sizes have a hard time getting software done. It's
intrinsic to the medium; software is always 85% done. It takes an
effort of will to push through this and get something released to
users.
[3]Startups make all kinds of excuses for delaying their launch. Most
are equivalent to the ones people use for procrastinating in everyday
life. There's something that needs to happen first. Maybe. But
if the software were 100% finished and ready to launch at the push
of a button, would they still be waiting?One reason to launch quickly is that it forces you to actually
finish some quantum of work. Nothing is truly finished till it's
released; you can see that from the rush of work that's always
involved in releasing anything, no matter how finished you thought
it was. The other reason you need to launch is that it's only by
bouncing your idea off users that you fully understand it.Several distinct problems manifest themselves as delays in launching:
working too slowly; not truly understanding the problem; fear of
having to deal with users; fear of being judged; working on too
many different things; excessive perfectionism. Fortunately you
can combat all of them by the simple expedient of forcing yourself
to launch something fairly quickly.9. Launching Too EarlyLaunching too slowly has probably killed a hundred times more
startups than launching too fast, but it is possible to launch too
fast. The danger here is that you ruin your reputation. You launch
something, the early adopters try it out, and if it's no good they
may never come back.So what's the minimum you need to launch? We suggest startups think
about what they plan to do, identify a core that's both (a) useful
on its own and (b) something that can be incrementally expanded
into the whole project, and then get that done as soon as possible.This is the same approach I (and many other programmers) use for
writing software. Think about the overall goal, then start by
writing the smallest subset of it that does anything useful. If
it's a subset, you'll have to write it anyway, so in the worst case
you won't be wasting your time. But more likely you'll find that
implementing a working subset is both good for morale and helps you
see more clearly what the rest should do.The early adopters you need to impress are fairly tolerant. They
don't expect a newly launched product to do everything; it just has
to do something.10. Having No Specific User in MindYou can't build things users like without understanding them. I
mentioned earlier that the most successful startups seem to have
begun by trying to solve a problem their founders had. Perhaps
there's a rule here: perhaps you create wealth in proportion to how
well you understand the problem you're solving, and the problems
you understand best are your own.
[4]That's just a theory. What's not a theory is the converse: if
you're trying to solve problems you don't understand, you're hosed.And yet a surprising number of founders seem willing to
assume that someone, they're not sure exactly who, will want what
they're building. Do the founders want it? No, they're not the
target market. Who is? Teenagers. People interested in local
events (that one is a perennial tarpit). Or "business" users. What
business users? Gas stations? Movie studios? Defense contractors?You can of course build something for users other than yourself.
We did. But you should realize you're stepping into dangerous
territory. You're flying on instruments, in effect, so you should
(a) consciously shift gears, instead of assuming you can rely on
your intuitions as you ordinarily would, and (b) look at the
instruments.In this case the instruments are the users. When designing for
other people you have to be empirical. You can no longer guess
what will work; you have to find users and measure their responses.
So if you're going to make something for teenagers or "business"
users or some other group that doesn't include you, you have to be
able to talk some specific ones into using what you're making. If
you can't, you're on the wrong track.11. Raising Too Little MoneyMost successful startups take funding at some point. Like having
more than one founder, it seems a good bet statistically. How much
should you take, though?Startup funding is measured in time. Every startup that isn't
profitable (meaning nearly all of them, initially) has a certain
amount of time left before the money runs out and they have to stop.
This is sometimes referred to as runway, as in "How much runway do
you have left?" It's a good metaphor because it reminds you that
when the money runs out you're going to be airborne or dead.Too little money means not enough to get airborne. What airborne
means depends on the situation. Usually you have to advance to a
visibly higher level: if all you have is an idea, a working prototype;
if you have a prototype, launching; if you're launched, significant
growth. It depends on investors, because until you're profitable
that's who you have to convince.So if you take money from investors, you have to take enough to get
to the next step, whatever that is.
[5]
Fortunately you have some
control over both how much you spend and what the next step is. We
advise startups to set both low, initially: spend practically
nothing, and make your initial goal simply to build a solid prototype.
This gives you maximum flexibility.12. Spending Too MuchIt's hard to distinguish spending too much from raising too little.
If you run out of money, you could say either was the cause. The
only way to decide which to call it is by comparison with other
startups. If you raised five million and ran out of money, you
probably spent too much.Burning through too much money is not as common as it used to be.
Founders seem to have learned that lesson. Plus it keeps getting
cheaper to start a startup. So as of this writing few startups
spend too much. None of the ones we've funded have. (And not just
because we make small investments; many have gone on to raise further
rounds.)The classic way to burn through cash is by hiring a lot of people.
This bites you twice: in addition to increasing your costs, it slows
you down—so money that's getting consumed faster has to last
longer. Most hackers understand why that happens; Fred Brooks
explained it in The Mythical Man-Month.We have three general suggestions about hiring: (a) don't do it if
you can avoid it, (b) pay people with equity rather than salary,
not just to save money, but because you want the kind of people who
are committed enough to prefer that, and (c) only hire people who
are either going to write code or go out and get users, because
those are the only things you need at first.13. Raising Too Much MoneyIt's obvious how too little money could kill you, but is there such
a thing as having too much?Yes and no. The problem is not so much the money itself as what
comes with it. As one VC who spoke at Y Combinator said, "Once you
take several million dollars of my money, the clock is ticking."
If VCs fund you, they're not going to let you just put the money
in the bank and keep operating as two guys living on ramen. They
want that money to go to work.
[6]
At the very least you'll move
into proper office space and hire more people. That will change
the atmosphere, and not entirely for the better. Now most of your
people will be employees rather than founders. They won't be as
committed; they'll need to be told what to do; they'll start to
engage in office politics.When you raise a lot of money, your company moves to the suburbs
and has kids.Perhaps more dangerously, once you take a lot of money it gets
harder to change direction. Suppose your initial plan was to sell
something to companies. After taking VC money you hire a sales
force to do that. What happens now if you realize you should be
making this for consumers instead of businesses? That's a completely
different kind of selling. What happens, in practice, is that you
don't realize that. The more people you have, the more you stay
pointed in the same direction.Another drawback of large investments is the time they take. The
time required to raise money grows with the amount.
[7]
When the
amount rises into the millions, investors get very cautious. VCs
never quite say yes or no; they just engage you in an apparently
endless conversation. Raising VC scale investments is thus a huge
time sink — more work, probably, than the startup itself. And you
don't want to be spending all your time talking to investors while
your competitors are spending theirs building things.We advise founders who go on to seek VC money to take the first
reasonable deal they get. If you get an offer from a reputable
firm at a reasonable valuation with no unusually onerous terms,
just take it and get on with building the company.
[8]
Who cares
if you could get a 30% better deal elsewhere? Economically, startups
are an all-or-nothing game. Bargain-hunting among investors is a
waste of time.14. Poor Investor ManagementAs a founder, you have to manage your investors. You shouldn't
ignore them, because they may have useful insights. But neither
should you let them run the company. That's supposed to be your
job. If investors had sufficient vision to run the companies
they fund, why didn't they start them?Pissing off investors by ignoring them is probably less dangerous
than caving in to them. In our startup, we erred on the ignoring
side. A lot of our energy got drained
away in disputes with investors instead of going into the product.
But this was less costly than giving in, which would probably have
destroyed the company. If the founders know what they're doing,
it's better to have half their attention focused on the product
than the full attention of investors who don't.How hard you have to work on managing investors usually depends on
how much money you've taken. When you raise VC-scale money, the
investors get a great deal of control. If they have a board majority,
they're literally your bosses. In the more common case, where
founders and investors are equally represented and the deciding
vote is cast by neutral outside directors, all the investors have
to do is convince the outside directors and they control the company.If things go well, this shouldn't matter. So long as you seem to
be advancing rapidly, most investors will leave you alone. But
things don't always go smoothly in startups. Investors have made
trouble even for the most successful companies. One of the most
famous examples is Apple, whose board made a nearly fatal blunder
in firing Steve Jobs. Apparently even Google got a lot of grief
from their investors early on.15. Sacrificing Users to (Supposed) ProfitWhen I said at the beginning that if you make something users want,
you'll be fine, you may have noticed I didn't mention anything about
having the right business model. That's not because making money
is unimportant. I'm not suggesting that founders start companies
with no chance of making money in the hope of unloading them before
they tank. The reason we tell founders not to worry about the
business model initially is that making something people want is
so much harder.I don't know why it's so hard to make something people want. It
seems like it should be straightforward. But you can tell it must
be hard by how few startups do it.Because making something people want is so much harder than making
money from it, you should leave business models for later, just as
you'd leave some trivial but messy feature for version 2. In version
1, solve the core problem. And the core problem in a startup is
how to create wealth
(= how much people want something x the number
who want it), not how to convert that wealth into money.The companies that win are the ones that put users first. Google,
for example. They made search work, then worried about how to make
money from it. And yet some startup founders still think it's
irresponsible not to focus on the business model from the beginning.
They're often encouraged in this by investors whose experience comes
from less malleable industries.It is irresponsible not to think about business models. It's
just ten times more irresponsible not to think about the product.16. Not Wanting to Get Your Hands DirtyNearly all programmers would rather spend their time writing code
and have someone else handle the messy business of extracting money
from it. And not just the lazy ones. Larry and Sergey apparently
felt this way too at first. After developing their new search
algorithm, the first thing they tried was to get some other company
to buy it.Start a company? Yech. Most hackers would rather just have ideas.
But as Larry and Sergey found, there's not much of a market for
ideas. No one trusts an idea till you embody it in a product and
use that to grow a user base. Then they'll pay big time.Maybe this will change, but I doubt it will change much. There's
nothing like users for convincing acquirers. It's not just that
the risk is decreased. The acquirers are human, and they have a
hard time paying a bunch of young guys millions of dollars just for
being clever. When the idea is embodied in a company with a lot
of users, they can tell themselves they're buying the users rather
than the cleverness, and this is easier for them to swallow.
[9]If you're going to attract users, you'll probably have to get up
from your computer and go find some. It's unpleasant work, but if
you can make yourself do it you have a much greater chance of
succeeding. In the first batch of startups we funded, in the summer
of 2005, most of the founders spent all their time building their
applications. But there was one who was away half the time talking
to executives at cell phone companies, trying to arrange deals.
Can you imagine anything more painful for a hacker?
[10]
But it
paid off, because this startup seems the most successful of that
group by an order of magnitude.If you want to start a startup, you have to face the fact that you
can't just hack. At least one hacker will have to spend some of
the time doing business stuff.17. Fights Between FoundersFights between founders are surprisingly common. About 20% of the
startups we've funded have had a founder leave. It happens so often
that we've reversed our attitude to vesting. We still don't require
it, but now we advise founders to vest so there will be an orderly
way for people to quit.A founder leaving doesn't necessarily kill a startup, though. Plenty
of successful startups have had that happen.
[11]
Fortunately it's
usually the least committed founder who leaves. If there are three
founders and one who was lukewarm leaves, big deal. If you have
two and one leaves, or a guy with critical technical skills leaves,
that's more of a problem. But even that is survivable. Blogger
got down to one person, and they bounced back.Most of the disputes I've seen between founders could have been
avoided if they'd been more careful about who they started a company
with. Most disputes are not due to the situation but the people.
Which means they're inevitable. And most founders who've been
burned by such disputes probably had misgivings, which they suppressed,
when they started the company. Don't suppress misgivings. It's
much easier to fix problems before the company is started than
after. So don't include your housemate in your startup because
he'd feel left out otherwise. Don't start a company with someone
you dislike because they have some skill you need and you worry you
won't find anyone else. The people are the most important ingredient
in a startup, so don't compromise there.18. A Half-Hearted EffortThe failed startups you hear most about are the spectacular
flameouts. Those are actually the elite of failures. The most
common type is not the one that makes spectacular mistakes, but the
one that doesn't do much of anything — the one we never even hear
about, because it was some project a couple guys started on the
side while working on their day jobs, but which never got anywhere
and was gradually abandoned.Statistically, if you want to avoid failure, it would seem like the
most important thing is to quit your day job. Most founders of
failed startups don't quit their day jobs, and most founders of
successful ones do. If startup failure were a disease, the CDC
would be issuing bulletins warning people to avoid day jobs.Does that mean you should quit your day job? Not necessarily. I'm
guessing here, but I'd guess that many of these would-be founders
may not have the kind of determination it takes to start a company,
and that in the back of their minds, they know it. The reason they
don't invest more time in their startup is that they know it's a
bad investment.
[12]I'd also guess there's some band of people who could have succeeded
if they'd taken the leap and done it full-time, but didn't. I have
no idea how wide this band is, but if the winner/borderline/hopeless
progression has the sort of distribution you'd expect, the number
of people who could have made it, if they'd quit their day job, is
probably an order of magnitude larger than the number who do make
it.
[13]If that's true, most startups that could succeed fail because the
founders don't devote their whole efforts to them. That certainly
accords with what I see out in the world. Most startups fail because
they don't make something people want, and the reason most don't
is that they don't try hard enough.In other words, starting startups is just like everything else.
The biggest mistake you can make is not to try hard enough. To the
extent there's a secret to success, it's not to be in denial about
that.
Notes[1]
This is not a complete list of the causes of failure,
just those you can control. There are also several you can't,
notably ineptitude and bad luck.[2]
Ironically, one variant of the Facebook that might work is a
facebook exclusively for college students.[3]
Steve Jobs tried to motivate people by saying "Real artists
ship." This is a fine sentence, but unfortunately not true. Many
famous works of art are unfinished. It's true in fields that have
hard deadlines, like architecture and filmmaking, but even there
people tend to be tweaking stuff till it's yanked out of their
hands.[4]
There's probably also a second factor: startup founders tend
to be at the leading edge of technology, so problems they face are
probably especially valuable.[5]
You should take more than you think you'll need, maybe 50% to
100% more, because software takes longer to write and deals longer
to close than you expect.[6]
Since people sometimes call us VCs, I should add that we're
not. VCs invest large amounts of other people's money. We invest
small amounts of our own, like angel investors.[7]
Not linearly of course, or it would take forever to raise five
million dollars. In practice it just feels like it takes forever.Though if you include the cases where VCs don't invest, it would
literally take forever in the median case. And maybe we should,
because the danger of chasing large investments is not just that
they take a long time. That's the best case. The real danger
is that you'll expend a lot of time and get nothing.[8]
Some VCs will offer you an artificially low valuation to see
if you have the balls to ask for more. It's lame that VCs play
such games, but some do. If you're dealing with one of those you
should push back on the valuation a bit.[9]
Suppose YouTube's founders had gone to Google in 2005 and told
them "Google Video is badly designed. Give us $10 million and we'll
tell you all the mistakes you made." They would have gotten
the royal raspberry. Eighteen months later Google paid $1.6 billion
for the same lesson, partly because they could then tell themselves
that they were buying a phenomenon, or a community, or some vague
thing like that.I don't mean to be hard on Google. They did better than their
competitors, who may have now missed the video boat entirely.[10]
Yes, actually: dealing with the government. But phone companies
are up there.[11]
Many more than most people realize, because companies don't advertise
this. Did you know Apple originally had three founders?[12]
I'm not dissing these people. I don't have the determination
myself. I've twice come close to starting startups since Viaweb,
and both times I bailed because I realized that without the spur
of poverty I just wasn't willing to endure the stress of a startup.[13]
So how do you know whether you're in the category of people
who should quit their day job, or the presumably larger one who
shouldn't? I got to the point of saying that this was hard to judge
for yourself and that you should seek outside advice, before realizing
that that's what we do. We think of ourselves as investors, but
viewed from the other direction Y Combinator is a service for
advising people whether or not to quit their day job. We could be
mistaken, and no doubt often are, but we do at least bet money on
our conclusions.Thanks to Sam Altman, Jessica Livingston, Greg McAdoo, and Robert Morris
for reading drafts of this.
| 2024-11-08T15:00:52 | en | train |
5,538 | domp | 2007-03-21T23:53:51 | 7 rules to maximize your creative output | null | http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2007/01/7-rules-for-maximizing-your-creative-output/ | 6 | 1 | [
5614
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,539 | domp | 2007-03-21T23:55:31 | 10 Reasons why proposals fail | null | http://www.instigatorblog.com/top-10-reasons-why-proposals-fail/2007/02/07/ | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,545 | lupin_sansei | 2007-03-22T00:20:42 | Moore's Law hits physics in memory chips - Yahoo! News | null | http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070321/tc_nm/microchips_memory_dc | 2 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,564 | bctaner | 2007-03-22T01:41:20 | New Technique Stores Data in Bacteria DNA | null | http://www.livescience.com/scienceoffiction/070310_bacteria_storage.html | 3 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,568 | danw | 2007-03-22T02:01:23 | Dekoh Challenges Apollo As Desktop/Web Platform | null | http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/dekoh_challenges_apollo.php | 3 | 0 | null | null | null | no_article | null | null | null | null | 2024-11-08T21:52:58 | null | train |
5,569 | danw | 2007-03-22T02:01:33 | CIOs Spurn Web 2.0 Startups - Enterprises Want Suites and Large, Incumbent Software Vendors | null | http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/cios_spurn_web2_startups.php | 6 | 6 | [
5573,
5657,
5685,
5665
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,570 | danw | 2007-03-22T02:02:08 | MoblogUK licenses platform to Channel 4 in ground-breaking TV project | null | http://www.vecosys.com/2007/03/22/mobloguk-licenses-platform-to-channel-4-in-ground-breaking-tv-project/ | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,571 | abstractbill | 2007-03-22T02:02:17 | Patience and persistence can pay off | null | http://www.michaelmcderment.com/category/running-a-startup/ | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,572 | python_kiss | 2007-03-22T02:05:46 | Startup founders, what books did you find most helpful? | null | null | 13 | 39 | [
5574,
5608,
5633,
5596,
5584,
5675,
5725,
5597,
5627,
5617,
5663,
5626,
5613,
5704,
9651,
5658,
5662,
5611,
5669,
9687,
5654
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,575 | lupin_sansei | 2007-03-22T02:15:30 | First privately funded spacecraft to achieve orbital height | null | http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-launch21mar21,1,839660.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true | 2 | 0 | null | null | null | no_error | Private rocket hits new heights - Los Angeles Times | 2007-03-21T07:00:00.000Z | John Johnson Jr | Falcon 1, a rocket built by El Segundo-based SpaceX, became the first privately funded spacecraft to achieve orbital height, reaching an altitude of 190 miles Tuesday before a control problem sent the vehicle hurtling back to Earth.The liquid oxygen-kerosene fueled rocket performed flawlessly for several minutes after its launch about 6:15 p.m. PDT from Kwajalein Atoll in the South Pacific.“Come on baby,” a ground controller said as the 70-foot rocket rose from its pad.The first stage separated as planned, and the second stage ignited on cue. Then, an on-board camera recorded violent vibrations in the second-stage engine, followed by a loss of video.Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX, also known as Space Exploration Technologies Corp., said the rocket managed to complete a half-orbit before going out of control.“This is the farthest any private liquid fuel rocket ever got in history,” Musk said later in a phone interview.Even though the rocket failed to achieve the desired orbit, he said it had overcome 90% of the difficulties of reaching space.“It wasn’t a perfect day,” Musk said. “But it was a good day.”SpaceX engineers were trying to figure out the exact problem late Tuesday.Musk, a South African immigrant who made an estimated $300 million from Internet ventures that included the PayPal on-line billing system, has pledged $100 million of his money to create a low-cost competitor to the big satellite-launch firms.He has several launch systems on the drawing board, including the nine-engine Falcon 9, designed to carry a crew capsule named Dragon.His first launch effort, another two-stage Falcon 1, failed to reach orbit last March.Over the last months, Musk, who believes he can cut the cost of space transport by a factor of 10, redesigned the rocket, adding dozens of new safety and monitoring mechanisms.Tuesday’s $7-million launch was a test for the Defense Department.SpaceX said it had already booked $400 million in orders from both the Department of Defense and other satellite companies, including two scheduled this year.*[email protected] More to Read | 2024-11-08T12:19:17 | en | train |
5,582 | bctaner | 2007-03-22T02:38:05 | Using an EEG cap, a startup hopes to change how people interact with video games | null | http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18276/ | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,583 | danw | 2007-03-22T02:40:28 | ClaimID adds social networking | null | http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/03/21/claimid-adds-social-networking/ | 1 | 1 | [
5630
] | null | null | no_error | ClaimID adds social networking | 2007-03-21T19:59:33+00:00 | Author: Chris Messina |
Skip to content
In spite of previous disavowals of having social networking aspirations, identity link aggregator ClaimID has now added the ability to add other ClaimID members to your profile as contacts.
Interestingly, they restrict you to adding friends who have OpenIDs (since every ClaimID profile URL is an OpenID) and use the XFN microformat to define your relationship.
This is a significant decision because, presumably, every OpenID has an owner. As such, adding one of these “verified” OpenID URLs as a contact to your verified OpenID URL could represent a higher trust level — a stronger “claim” as the lingo goes — than simply using the XFN rel-me attribute to create a “weak” relationship claim. Or so goes the theory.
Meanwhile, I’ve recently been reordering my Flickr screenshot collections and have created a set devoted to adding friends interfaces. If you have examples of similar interfaces, leave me a link to the source and I’ll get them added!
Inventor of the hashtag. #1 Product Hunter. Techmeme Ride Home podcaster. Ever-curious product designer and technologist. Previously: Google, Uber, Republic, YC W'18.
View all posts by Chris Messina
Post navigation
| 2024-11-08T00:31:24 | en | train |
5,585 | amichail | 2007-03-22T02:45:18 | Is it often the case that one founder tends to dominate the decision making process (e.g., Steve Jobs vs Steve Wozniak)? | null | http://www.feedblog.org/2006/10/mistakes_startu.html | 1 | 1 | [
5650
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,598 | amichail | 2007-03-22T03:27:17 | "...it has also been my observation that a majority of all entrepreneurs have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or AD/HD." | null | http://add.about.com/cs/workplaceissues/a/entrepreneur%20.htm | 6 | 6 | [
5646,
5621,
5599,
5615
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,604 | paul | 2007-03-22T03:52:22 | Secrets of Success | null | http://www.synapsoftware.com/blogit/articles/2007/03/21/secrets-of-success | 2 | 1 | [
5923
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,606 | amichail | 2007-03-22T03:59:04 | Dating Web site targets 'fit, good-looking' people | null | http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17723921/ | 1 | 2 | [
5634
] | null | null | no_title | null | null | null | null | 2024-11-08T10:39:39 | null | train |
5,609 | rmason | 2007-03-22T04:19:24 | Nick Bradbury on Tips for Independent Developers | null | http://www.creative-restraint.co.uk/blog/index.cfm/2007/3/21/Nick-Bradbury-on-Tips-for-Independent-Developers | 3 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,612 | lupin_sansei | 2007-03-22T04:27:35 | GStock Supercomputer - Free stock picks, stocks and stock market quotes | null | http://www.gstock.com/ | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,623 | dmon | 2007-03-22T05:18:08 | Y Combinator Startup News clone in spanish | null | http://www.bochinchoso.com | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,629 | python_kiss | 2007-03-22T05:52:32 | User Community and ROI | null | http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/03/user_community_.html | 5 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,631 | youmon | 2007-03-22T06:12:37 | Startup Metrics Series | null | http://blog.boxxet.com/category/metrics-series/ | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,632 | myoung8 | 2007-03-22T06:17:19 | Anyone interested in joining a team of Stanford students to try to get a Lightspeed VP Summer Grant? | null | http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=5632 | 1 | 2 | [
5645,
5638
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,635 | python_kiss | 2007-03-22T07:45:49 | Breaking: News Corp and NBC Partner To Kill YouTube | null | http://mashable.com/2007/03/21/kill-youtube/ | 1 | 0 | [
5640
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,636 | JMiao | 2007-03-22T07:48:58 | Kongregate (user generated flash games) gets funding | null | http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/03/22/kongregate-gets-1m-launches-user-generated-games/ | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | no_error | Kongregate Gets $1M, Launches User Generated Games | TechCrunch | 2007-03-22T07:17:12+00:00 | Contributor |
We covered Kongregate when they were in private beta, but they’re officially public with a new wad of cash from some big names to back them up. They’ve created a gaming community around Flash games developed by other users, and are announcing a “nearly” $1 million angel round, including funds from Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn), Joe Kraus (Excite/JotSpot), Jeff Clavier (SoftTech VC) and Richard Wolpert (Disney Online), among others.
Kongregate is about user generated games and the competitive gaming community around them, which sets them up to be a really sticky site. CEO Jim Greer compares it to XBox Live for Flash games. Players can chat with each other during game play, create profiles, earn points, and get special achievement bonuses as they progress up the ranks. You don’t have to be registered to play the games, but you do if you want to chat and gain levels. My favorite game on the site so far is Warbears, where you play some bad ass teddies on a mission to save hostages by incapacitating baddies.
Currently players get points for uploading games (big points), completing game challenges, rating games, leaving quality feedback, and referring Kongregate to other players. You get achievement icons by accomplishing challenges, like finding all the hidden items in their top game, The Fancy Pants Adventures. In the future, players will get some rewards for each level-up, which may include new options for personalizing their profile, unlocking the ‘labs’ category on the site, or special offers from Kongregate and its advertisers. The achievements you get from points and challenges will also unlock cards for a special online card game (set to release in May) they are developing in-house.
Developers who upload their own games get more than points. Kongregate will also share 25%-50% of advertising revenue generated from the games with developers.
There are many competing Flash game sites. The giants are Pogo and Miniclip, which support multiplayer games along with a host of downloadable versions that users unlock for a fee after a trial period. Another very large site Newgrounds (500K uniques/day) and Cafe.com come closer. Newgrounds runs on user generated games and has a point ranking system, but doesn’t have Kongregate’s revenue share or chatting. Cafe.com has all downloaded games, with power-ups and avatar attire you can buy. Another startup Bunchball, used to allow embedding of the flash games on other websites up until last week.
Most Popular
Newsletters
Subscribe for the industry’s biggest tech news
Related
Latest in TC
| 2024-11-08T04:33:56 | en | train |
5,642 | staunch | 2007-03-22T08:11:41 | If Viaweb was a YC-funded Startup Today, What Would it Look Like? | null | 3 | 5 | [
5759,
5773
] | null | null | invalid_url | null | null | null | null | 2024-11-08T16:37:59 | null | train |
|
5,648 | zaidf | 2007-03-22T08:49:45 | Post URL to your blog | null | 1 | 1 | [
5649
] | null | null | invalid_url | null | null | null | null | 2024-11-08T16:37:59 | null | train |
|
5,651 | danielha | 2007-03-22T09:10:17 | LicketyShip Launches P2P Deliveries | null | http://blogs.business2.com/beta/2007/03/licketyship_lau.html | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,652 | danielha | 2007-03-22T09:13:27 | Read your snail mail on the Web: RemoteControlMail | null | http://www.webware.com/8301-1_109-9699928-2.html?tag=blog | 1 | 1 | [
5735
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,653 | rms | 2007-03-22T09:37:12 | Techcrunch empire to expand into seed-stage financing | null | http://bub.blicio.us/?p=105 | 6 | 6 | [
5764,
5674,
5681
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,659 | danw | 2007-03-22T11:46:20 | YC Companies: Where are they now? | null | 2 | 4 | [
5660,
5696,
5784,
5796
] | null | null | invalid_url | null | null | null | null | 2024-11-08T16:37:59 | null | train |
|
5,666 | jamescoops | 2007-03-22T12:24:38 | What's the best way of giving away equity to co-founders e.g. on specific targets met, options, vesting etc? | null | 2 | 4 | [
5692,
5733,
5667,
5925
] | null | null | invalid_url | null | null | null | null | 2024-11-08T16:37:59 | null | train |
|
5,668 | cdprashanth | 2007-03-22T12:33:15 | Anyone like to be Co-Founder from Bangalore - INDIA ? | null | http://google.com | 4 | 0 | null | null | null | missing_parsing | Google | null | null | AdvertisingBusiness How Search works Our third decade of climate action: join usPrivacyTermsSettings | 2024-11-07T22:50:07 | null | train |
5,670 | stevendavis0830 | 2007-03-22T13:11:39 | The Traffic Stats for Digg & The Other Top Bookmarking Sites Revealed! | null | http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/top10_largest_social_bookmarking_sites.html | 11 | 4 | [
5753,
5679,
5719,
5818
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,672 | mattculbreth | 2007-03-22T13:15:50 | Lack of Mac malware baffles experts | null | http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2186013/dearth-mac-malware-continues | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | fetch failed | null | null | null | null | 2024-11-07T22:40:07 | null | train |
5,676 | veritas | 2007-03-22T13:33:48 | VCs, the Economy, and Employment | null | http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2007/03/21/vcs_the_economy.html | 2 | 0 | null | null | null | bot_blocked | 403 Forbidden | null | null |
nginx/1.18.0 (Ubuntu)
| 2024-11-08T14:19:45 | null | train |
5,682 | staunch | 2007-03-22T13:53:59 | Jackpot of 21 Podcasts For web designers, developers and entrepreneurs | null | http://odeo.com/channel/103179/view | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,683 | vegashacker | 2007-03-22T14:03:56 | Schedule up for Startup School -- includes a recent founders panel | null | http://startupschool.org/schedule.html | 13 | 2 | [
5724,
5714
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,684 | mattculbreth | 2007-03-22T14:23:14 | The shrinking server market (due to multi-core and virtualization) | null | http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070321-multicore-virtualization-and-a-shrinking-server-market-maybe-or-maybe-not.html | 2 | 2 | [
5768,
5730
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,687 | Sam_Odio | 2007-03-22T14:28:27 | How to be Silicon Valley | null | http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html | 3 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,688 | Sam_Odio | 2007-03-22T14:29:43 | Founder of Silicon Valley "as detestable as he always appeared" | null | http://www.newstatesman.com/200607030058 | 8 | 4 | [
5743,
5769
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,689 | Sam_Odio | 2007-03-22T14:31:25 | Why are there so few startups outside of the US? | null | http://www.paulgraham.com/america.html | 4 | 0 | null | null | null | no_error | Why Startups Condense in America | null | null | May 2006(This essay is derived from a keynote at Xtech.)Startups happen in clusters. There are a lot of them in Silicon
Valley and Boston, and few in Chicago or Miami. A country that
wants startups will probably also have to reproduce whatever makes
these clusters form.I've claimed that the recipe is a
great university near a town smart
people like. If you set up those conditions within the US, startups
will form as inevitably as water droplets condense on a cold piece
of metal. But when I consider what it would take to reproduce
Silicon Valley in another country, it's clear the US is a particularly
humid environment. Startups condense more easily here.It is by no means a lost cause to try to create a silicon valley
in another country. There's room not merely to equal Silicon Valley,
but to surpass it. But if you want to do that, you have to
understand the advantages startups get from being in America.1. The US Allows Immigration.For example, I doubt it would be possible to reproduce Silicon
Valley in Japan, because one of Silicon Valley's most distinctive
features is immigration. Half the people there speak with accents.
And the Japanese don't like immigration. When they think about how
to make a Japanese silicon valley, I suspect they unconsciously
frame it as how to make one consisting only of Japanese people.
This way of framing the question probably guarantees failure.A silicon valley has to be a mecca for the smart and the ambitious,
and you can't have a mecca if you don't let people into it.Of course, it's not saying much that America is more open to
immigration than Japan. Immigration policy is one area where a
competitor could do better.2. The US Is a Rich Country.I could see India one day producing a rival to Silicon Valley.
Obviously they have the right people: you can tell that by the
number of Indians in the current Silicon Valley. The problem with
India itself is that it's still so poor.In poor countries, things we take for granted are missing. A friend
of mine visiting India sprained her ankle falling down the steps
in a railway station. When she turned to see what had happened,
she found the steps were all different heights. In industrialized
countries we walk down steps our whole lives and never think about
this, because there's an infrastructure that prevents such a staircase
from being built.The US has never been so poor as some countries are now. There
have never been swarms of beggars in the streets of American cities.
So we have no data about what it takes to get from the swarms-of-beggars
stage to the silicon-valley stage. Could you have both at once,
or does there have to be some baseline prosperity before you get a
silicon valley?I suspect there is some speed limit to the evolution
of an economy. Economies are made out of people, and attitudes can
only change a certain amount per generation.
[1]3. The US Is Not (Yet) a Police State.Another country I could see wanting to have a silicon valley is
China. But I doubt they could do it yet either. China still seems
to be a police state, and although present rulers seem enlightened
compared to the last, even enlightened despotism can probably only
get you part way toward being a great economic power.It can get you factories for building things designed elsewhere.
Can it get you the designers, though? Can imagination flourish
where people can't criticize the government? Imagination means
having odd ideas, and it's hard to have odd ideas about technology
without also having odd ideas about politics. And in any case,
many technical ideas do have political implications. So if you
squash dissent, the back pressure will propagate into technical
fields.
[2]Singapore would face a similar problem. Singapore seems very aware
of the importance of encouraging startups. But while energetic
government intervention may be able to make a port run efficiently,
it can't coax startups into existence. A state that bans chewing
gum has a long way to go before it could create a San Francisco.Do you need a San Francisco? Might there not be an alternate route
to innovation that goes through obedience and cooperation instead
of individualism? Possibly, but I'd bet not. Most imaginative
people seem to share a certain prickly independence,
whenever and wherever they lived. You see it in Diogenes telling
Alexander to get out of his light and two thousand years later in
Feynman breaking into safes at Los Alamos.
[3]
Imaginative people
don't want to follow or lead. They're most productive when everyone
gets to do what they want.Ironically, of all rich countries the US has lost the most civil
liberties recently. But I'm not too worried yet. I'm hoping once
the present administration is out, the natural openness of American
culture will reassert itself.4. American Universities Are Better.You need a great university to seed a silicon valley, and so far
there are few outside the US. I asked a handful of American computer
science professors which universities in Europe were most admired,
and they all basically said "Cambridge" followed by a long pause
while they tried to think of others. There don't seem to be many
universities elsewhere that compare with the best in America, at
least in technology.In some countries this is the result of a deliberate policy. The
German and Dutch governments, perhaps from fear of elitism, try to
ensure that all universities are roughly equal in quality. The
downside is that none are especially good. The best professors
are spread out, instead of being concentrated as they are in the
US. This probably makes them less productive, because they don't
have good colleagues to inspire them. It also means no one university
will be good enough to act as a mecca, attracting talent from abroad
and causing startups to form around it.The case of Germany is a strange one. The Germans invented the
modern university, and up till the 1930s theirs were the best in
the world. Now they have none that stand out. As I was mulling
this over, I found myself thinking: "I can understand why German
universities declined in the 1930s, after they excluded Jews. But
surely they should have bounced back by now." Then I realized:
maybe not. There are few Jews left in Germany and most Jews I know
would not want to move there. And if you took any great American
university and removed the Jews, you'd have some pretty big gaps.
So maybe it would be a lost cause trying to create a silicon valley
in Germany, because you couldn't establish the level of university
you'd need as a seed.
[4]It's natural for US universities to compete with one another because
so many are private. To reproduce the quality of American universities
you probably also have to reproduce this. If universities are
controlled by the central government, log-rolling will pull them
all toward the mean: the new Institute of X will end up at the
university in the district of a powerful politician, instead of
where it should be.5. You Can Fire People in America.I think one of the biggest obstacles to creating startups in Europe
is the attitude toward employment. The famously rigid labor laws
hurt every company, but startups especially, because startups have
the least time to spare for bureaucratic hassles.The difficulty of firing people is a particular problem for startups
because they have no redundancy. Every person has to do their
job well.But the problem is more than just that some startup might have a
problem firing someone they needed to. Across industries and
countries, there's a strong inverse correlation between performance
and job security. Actors and directors are fired at the end of
each film, so they have to deliver every time. Junior professors
are fired by default after a few years unless the university chooses
to grant them tenure. Professional athletes know they'll be pulled
if they play badly for just a couple games. At the other end of
the scale (at least in the US) are auto workers, New York City
schoolteachers, and civil servants, who are all nearly impossible
to fire. The trend is so clear that you'd have to be willfully
blind not to see it.Performance isn't everything, you say? Well, are auto workers,
schoolteachers, and civil servants happier than actors,
professors, and professional athletes?European public opinion will apparently tolerate people being fired
in industries where they really care about performance. Unfortunately
the only industry they care enough about so far is soccer. But
that is at least a precedent.6. In America Work Is Less Identified with Employment.The problem in more traditional places like Europe and Japan goes
deeper than the employment laws. More dangerous is the attitude
they reflect: that an employee is a kind of servant, whom the
employer has a duty to protect. It used to be that way in America
too. In 1970 you were still supposed to get a job with a big
company, for whom ideally you'd work your whole career. In return
the company would take care of you: they'd try not to fire you,
cover your medical expenses, and support you in old age.Gradually employment has been shedding such paternalistic overtones
and becoming simply an economic exchange. But the importance of
the new model is not just that it makes it easier for startups to
grow. More important, I think, is that it it makes it easier for
people to start startups.Even in the US most kids graduating from college still think they're
supposed to get jobs, as if you couldn't be productive without being
someone's employee. But the less you identify work with employment,
the easier it becomes to start a startup. When you see your career
as a series of different types of work, instead of a lifetime's
service to a single employer, there's less risk in starting your
own company, because you're only replacing one segment instead of
discarding the whole thing.The old ideas are so powerful that even the most successful startup
founders have had to struggle against them. A year after the
founding of Apple, Steve Wozniak still hadn't quit HP. He still
planned to work there for life. And when Jobs found someone to
give Apple serious venture funding, on the condition that Woz quit,
he initially refused, arguing that he'd designed both the Apple I
and the Apple II while working at HP, and there was no reason he
couldn't continue.7. America Is Not Too Fussy.If there are any laws regulating businesses, you can assume larval
startups will break most of them, because they don't know what the
laws are and don't have time to find out.For example, many startups in America begin in places where it's
not really legal to run a business. Hewlett-Packard, Apple, and
Google were all run out of garages. Many more startups, including
ours, were initially run out of apartments. If the laws against
such things were actually enforced, most startups wouldn't happen.That could be a problem in fussier countries. If Hewlett and Packard
tried running an electronics company out of their garage in
Switzerland, the old lady next door would report them to the municipal
authorities.But the worst problem in other countries is probably the effort
required just to start a company. A friend of mine started a company
in Germany in the early 90s, and was shocked to discover, among
many other regulations, that you needed $20,000 in capital to
incorporate. That's one reason I'm not typing this on an Apfel
laptop. Jobs and Wozniak couldn't have come up with that kind of
money in a company financed by selling a VW bus and an HP calculator.
We couldn't have started Viaweb either.
[5]Here's a tip for governments that want to encourage startups: read
the stories of existing startups, and then try to simulate what
would have happened in your country. When you hit something that
would have killed Apple, prune it off.Startups are marginal.
They're started by the poor and the
timid; they begin in marginal space and spare time; they're started
by people who are supposed to be doing something else; and though
businesses, their founders often know nothing about business. Young
startups are fragile. A society that trims its margins sharply
will kill them all.8. America Has a Large Domestic Market.What sustains a startup in the beginning is the prospect of getting
their initial product out. The successful ones therefore make the
first version as simple as possible. In the US they usually begin
by making something just for the local market.This works in America, because the local market is 300 million
people. It wouldn't work so well in Sweden. In a small country,
a startup has a harder task: they have to sell internationally from
the start.The EU was designed partly to simulate a single, large domestic
market. The problem is that the inhabitants still speak many
different languages. So a software startup in Sweden is still at
a disadvantage relative to one in the US, because they have to deal
with internationalization from the beginning. It's significant
that the most famous recent startup in Europe, Skype, worked on a
problem that was intrinsically international.However, for better or worse it looks as if Europe will in a few
decades speak a single language. When I was a student in Italy in
1990, few Italians spoke English. Now all educated people seem to
be expected to-- and Europeans do not like to seem uneducated. This
is presumably a taboo subject, but if present trends continue,
French and German will eventually go the way of Irish and Luxembourgish:
they'll be spoken in homes and by eccentric nationalists.9. America Has Venture Funding.Startups are easier to start in America because funding is easier
to get. There are now a few VC firms outside the US, but startup
funding doesn't only come from VC firms. A more important source,
because it's more personal and comes earlier in the process, is
money from individual angel investors. Google might never have got
to the point where they could raise millions from VC funds if they
hadn't first raised a hundred thousand from Andy Bechtolsheim. And
he could help them because he was one of the founders of Sun. This
pattern is repeated constantly in startup hubs. It's this pattern
that makes them startup hubs.The good news is, all you have to do to get the process rolling is
get those first few startups successfully launched. If they stick
around after they get rich, startup founders will almost automatically
fund and encourage new startups.The bad news is that the cycle is slow. It probably takes five
years, on average, before a startup founder can make angel investments.
And while governments might be able to set up local VC funds
by supplying the money themselves and recruiting people from existing
firms to run them, only organic growth can produce angel investors.Incidentally, America's private universities are one reason there's
so much venture capital. A lot of the money in VC funds comes from
their endowments. So another advantage of private universities is
that a good chunk of the country's wealth is managed by enlightened
investors.10. America Has Dynamic Typing for Careers.Compared to other industrialized countries the US is disorganized
about routing people into careers. For example, in America people
often don't decide to go to medical school till they've finished
college. In Europe they generally decide in high school.The European approach reflects the old idea that each person has a
single, definite occupation-- which is not far from the idea that
each person has a natural "station" in life. If this were true,
the most efficient plan would be to discover each person's station
as early as possible, so they could receive the training appropriate
to it.In the US things are more haphazard. But that turns out to be an
advantage as an economy gets more liquid, just as dynamic typing
turns out to work better than static for ill-defined problems. This
is particularly true with startups. "Startup founder" is not the
sort of career a high school student would choose. If you ask at
that age, people will choose conservatively. They'll choose
well-understood occupations like engineer, or doctor, or lawyer.Startups are the kind of thing people don't plan, so you're more
likely to get them in a society where it's ok to make career decisions
on the fly.For example, in theory the purpose of a PhD program is to train you
to do research. But fortunately in the US this is another rule
that isn't very strictly enforced. In the US most people in CS PhD
programs are there simply because they wanted to learn more. They
haven't decided what they'll do afterward. So American grad schools
spawn a lot of startups, because students don't feel they're failing
if they don't go into research.Those worried about America's "competitiveness" often suggest
spending more on public schools. But perhaps America's lousy public
schools have a hidden advantage. Because they're so bad, the kids
adopt an attitude of waiting for college. I did; I knew I was
learning so little that I wasn't even learning what the choices
were, let alone which to choose. This is demoralizing, but it does
at least make you keep an open mind.Certainly if I had to choose between bad high schools and good
universities, like the US, and good high schools and bad universities,
like most other industrialized countries, I'd take the US system.
Better to make everyone feel like a late bloomer than a failed child
prodigy.AttitudesThere's one item conspicuously missing from this list: American
attitudes. Americans are said to be more entrepreneurial, and less
afraid of risk. But America has no monopoly on this. Indians and
Chinese seem plenty entrepreneurial, perhaps more than Americans.Some say Europeans are less energetic, but I don't believe it. I
think the problem with Europe is not that they lack balls, but that
they lack examples.Even in the US, the most successful startup founders are often
technical people who are quite timid, initially, about the idea of
starting their own company. Few are the sort of backslapping
extroverts one thinks of as typically American. They can usually
only summon up the activation energy to start a startup when they
meet people who've done it and realize they could too.I think what holds back European hackers is simply that they don't
meet so many people who've done it. You see that variation even
within the US. Stanford students are more entrepreneurial than
Yale students, but not because of some difference in their characters;
the Yale students just have fewer examples.I admit there seem to be different attitudes toward ambition in
Europe and the US. In the US it's ok to be overtly ambitious, and
in most of Europe it's not. But this can't be an intrinsically
European quality; previous generations of Europeans were as ambitious
as Americans. What happened? My hypothesis is that ambition was
discredited by the terrible things ambitious people did in the first
half of the twentieth century. Now swagger is out. (Even now the
image of a very ambitious German presses a button or two, doesn't
it?)It would be surprising if European attitudes weren't affected by
the disasters of the twentieth century. It takes a while to be
optimistic after events like that. But ambition is human nature.
Gradually it will re-emerge.
[6]How To Do BetterI don't mean to suggest by this list that America is the perfect
place for startups. It's the best place so far, but the sample
size is small, and "so far" is not very long. On historical time
scales, what we have now is just a
prototype.So let's look at Silicon Valley the way you'd look at a product
made by a competitor. What weaknesses could you exploit? How could
you make something users would like better? The users in this case
are those critical few thousand people you'd like to move to your
silicon valley.To start with, Silicon Valley is too far from San Francisco. Palo
Alto, the original ground zero, is about thirty miles away, and the
present center more like forty. So people who come to work in
Silicon Valley face an unpleasant choice: either live in the boring
sprawl of the valley proper, or live in San Francisco and endure
an hour commute each way.The best thing would be if the silicon valley were not merely closer
to the interesting city, but interesting itself. And there is a
lot of room for improvement here. Palo Alto is not so bad, but
everything built since is the worst sort of strip development. You
can measure how demoralizing it is by the number of people who will
sacrifice two hours a day commuting rather than live there.Another area in which you could easily surpass Silicon Valley is
public transportation. There is a train running the length of it,
and by American standards it's not bad. Which is to say that to
Japanese or Europeans it would seem like something out of the third
world.The kind of people you want to attract to your silicon valley like
to get around by train, bicycle, and on foot. So if you want to
beat America, design a town that puts cars last. It will be a while
before any American city can bring itself to do that.Capital GainsThere are also a couple things you could do to beat America at the
national level. One would be to have lower capital gains taxes.
It doesn't seem critical to have the lowest income taxes,
because to take advantage of those, people have to move.
[7]
But
if capital gains rates vary, you move assets, not yourself, so
changes are reflected at market speeds. The lower the rate, the
cheaper it is to buy stock in growing companies as opposed to real
estate, or bonds, or stocks bought for the dividends they pay.So if you want to encourage startups you should have a low rate on
capital gains. Politicians are caught between a rock and a hard
place here, however: make the capital gains rate low and be accused
of creating "tax breaks for the rich," or make it high and starve
growing companies of investment capital. As Galbraith said,
politics is a matter of choosing between the unpalatable and the
disastrous. A lot of governments experimented with the disastrous
in the twentieth century; now the trend seems to be toward the
merely unpalatable.Oddly enough, the leaders now are European countries like Belgium,
which has a capital gains tax rate of zero.ImmigrationThe other place you could beat the US would be with smarter immigration
policy. There are huge gains to be made here. Silicon valleys are
made of people, remember.Like a company whose software runs on Windows, those in the current
Silicon Valley are all too aware of the shortcomings of the INS,
but there's little they can do about it. They're hostages of the
platform.America's immigration system has never been well run, and since
2001 there has been an additional admixture of paranoia. What
fraction of the smart people who want to come to America can even
get in? I doubt even half. Which means if you made a competing
technology hub that let in all smart people, you'd immediately get
more than half the world's top talent, for free.US immigration policy is particularly ill-suited to startups, because
it reflects a model of work from the 1970s. It assumes good technical
people have college degrees, and that work means working for a big
company.If you don't have a college degree you can't get an H1B visa, the
type usually issued to programmers. But a test that excludes Steve
Jobs, Bill Gates, and Michael Dell can't be a good one. Plus you
can't get a visa for working on your own company, only for working
as an employee of someone else's. And if you want to apply for
citizenship you daren't work for a startup at all, because if your
sponsor goes out of business, you have to start over.American immigration policy keeps out most smart people, and channels
the rest into unproductive jobs. It would be easy to do better.
Imagine if, instead, you treated immigration like recruiting-- if
you made a conscious effort to seek out the smartest people and get
them to come to your country.A country that got immigration right would have a huge advantage.
At this point you could become a mecca for smart people simply by
having an immigration system that let them in.A Good VectorIf you look at the kinds of things you have to do to create an
environment where startups condense, none are great sacrifices.
Great universities? Livable towns? Civil liberties? Flexible
employment laws? Immigration policies that let in smart people?
Tax laws that encourage growth? It's not as if you have to risk
destroying your country to get a silicon valley; these are all good
things in their own right.And then of course there's the question, can you afford not to? I
can imagine a future in which the default choice of ambitious young
people is to start their own company
rather than work for someone else's. I'm not sure that will happen,
but it's where the trend points now. And if that is the future,
places that don't have startups will be a whole step behind,
like those that missed the Industrial Revolution.Notes[1]
On the verge of the Industrial Revolution, England was already
the richest country in the world. As far as such things can be
compared, per capita income in England in 1750 was higher than
India's in 1960.Deane, Phyllis, The First Industrial Revolution, Cambridge
University Press, 1965.[2]
This has already happened once in China, during the Ming
Dynasty, when the country turned its back on industrialization at
the command of the court. One of Europe's advantages was that it
had no government powerful enough to do that.[3]
Of course, Feynman and Diogenes were from adjacent traditions,
but Confucius, though more polite, was no more willing to be told
what to think.[4]
For similar reasons it might be a lost cause to try to establish
a silicon valley in Israel. Instead of no Jews moving there, only
Jews would move there, and I don't think you could build a silicon
valley out of just Jews any more than you could out of just Japanese.(This is not a remark about the qualities of these groups, just their
sizes. Japanese are only about 2% of the world population, and
Jews about .2%.)[5]
According to the World Bank, the initial capital requirement
for German companies is 47.6% of the per capita income. Doh.World Bank, Doing Business in 2006, http://doingbusiness.org[6]
For most of the twentieth century, Europeans looked back on
the summer of 1914 as if they'd been living in a dream world. It
seems more accurate (or at least, as accurate) to call the years
after 1914 a nightmare than to call those before a dream. A lot
of the optimism Europeans consider distinctly American is simply
what they too were feeling in 1914.[7]
The point where things start to go wrong seems to be about
50%. Above that people get serious about tax avoidance. The reason
is that the payoff for avoiding tax grows hyperexponentially (x/1-x
for 0 < x < 1). If your income tax rate is 10%, moving to Monaco
would only give you 11% more income, which wouldn't even cover the
extra cost. If it's 90%, you'd get ten times as much income. And
at 98%, as it was briefly in Britain in the 70s, moving to Monaco
would give you fifty times as much income. It seems quite likely
that European governments of the 70s never drew this curve.Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Matthias Felleisen, Jessica
Livingston, Robert Morris, Neil Rimer, Hugues Steinier, Brad
Templeton, Fred Wilson, and Stephen Wolfram for reading
drafts of this, and to Ed Dumbill for inviting me to speak. | 2024-11-07T23:50:38 | en | train |
5,693 | amichail | 2007-03-22T15:15:57 | Paul Graham on what business can learn from open source and blogging. | null | http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail657.html | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | no_error | Paul Graham | OSCON 2005 | null | null | Paul Graham, popular author and Lisp programmer, discusses what business can learn from open source. According to him, it's not about Linux or Firefox, but the forces that produced them. He delves into the reasons why open source is able to produce better software, why traditional workplaces are actually harmful to productivity and the reason why professionalism is overrated. Paul takes blogging as an analogy and explains how the phenomenon is actually very similar to the open source movement. Both show that amateurs often surpass professionals in what they choose to do, because they love what they are doing. He also points out that in the age of the internet, which has made collaboration extremely easy, large corporations find it difficult to compete with software produced by a bunch of inspired hackers. Paul also takes a dig at workplaces as we know them and illustrates how the most productive phase of any company is when it is still a startup. IT Conversations' publication of this program is underwritten by your donations and: Paul Graham is the author of On Lisp, Ansi Common Lisp, and Hackers & Painters; was co-founder of Viaweb (now Yahoo Store); discovered a simple Bayesian spam filter that inspired many present filters; and is one of the partners in Y Combinator. He has a PhD in computer science from Harvard and studied painting at RISD and the Accademia in Florence. Resources: Paul Graham's personal page An essay by Paul Graham based on this talk Wikipedia entry on open source Wikipedia entry on Paul Graham This program is from the O'Reilly Open Source Convention held in Portland, Oregon August 1-5, 2005. For Team ITC: Description editor: Thejo Kote Post-production audio engineer: Bruce Sharpe Series producer: Darusha Wehm | 2024-11-08T00:15:27 | en | train |
5,694 | far33d | 2007-03-22T15:30:19 | NBC, NewsCorp to announce YouTube Competitor | null | http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/03/22/news-corp-nbc-may-announce-distributed-youtube-competitor-tomorrow/ | 5 | 6 | [
5762,
5758,
5695,
5830
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,697 | danielha | 2007-03-22T15:41:27 | CNBC video clip: NBC and News Corporation announce partnership | null | http://valleywag.com/tech/breaking/nbc-and-news-corporation-announce-246259.php | 1 | 1 | [
5698
] | null | null | fetch failed | null | null | null | null | 2024-11-08T18:09:40 | null | train |
5,702 | mattculbreth | 2007-03-22T15:56:31 | Best Buy scores exclusive deal for Apple TV | null | http://news.com.com/2061-10793_3-6169447.html | 2 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,707 | techcore | 2007-03-22T16:16:27 | Big guide to getting your questions answered online | null | http://franticindustries.com/blog/2007/03/21/big-guide-to-getting-your-questions-answered-online/ | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,709 | jadams | 2007-03-22T16:24:44 | The Business of Software: Real Advice From Real Business Owners | null | http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?biz | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,716 | mattculbreth | 2007-03-22T16:47:08 | Microsoft VC Summit | null | http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2007/03/microsoft_vc_su.html | 2 | 2 | [
5742
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,721 | brett | 2007-03-22T17:00:50 | Overtime and Startups | null | http://jroller.com/page/cardsharp?entry=overtime_and_startups | 5 | 2 | [
5766
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,738 | brett | 2007-03-22T17:56:23 | YouTube Case Study: Widget marketing comes of age - Startup Review Blog | null | http://www.startup-review.com/blog/youtube-case-study-widget-marketing-comes-of-age.php | 1 | 1 | [
18633
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,750 | far33d | 2007-03-22T18:50:49 | Netflix: Take as much vacation as you want. | null | http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_5493698 | 14 | 7 | [
5752,
5855,
5780,
5804,
5782
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,760 | joshwa | 2007-03-22T19:06:26 | Is Good Design a liability when you're trying to appeal to the Masses? (MySpace vs. Virb) | null | http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2007/03/virb-vs-myspace | 10 | 12 | [
5787,
5767,
5786,
5907
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,774 | mario76 | 2007-03-22T19:45:01 | Is 'script' licensing (a la vBulletin) still an option for a web application? | null | 1 | 1 | [
5890
] | null | null | invalid_url | null | null | null | null | 2024-11-08T16:37:59 | null | train |
|
5,779 | wysiwyg | 2007-03-22T20:24:35 | Justin.TV Co-Founder Talks Up Live, Mobile Internet Video | null | http://interviews.direcpod.com/2007/03/22/justin-tv-mobile-video-justin-kan/ | 2 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,785 | Elfan | 2007-03-22T20:59:58 | Exciting Times To Be An Entrepreneur In America | null | http://www.scribd.com/doc/88/Exciting-Times-To-Be-An-Entrepreneur-In-America | 7 | 0 | null | null | null | http_other_error | Removal Notice | Scribd | null | null | This content was removed at the request of Ricardo Pasang | 2024-11-08T13:09:05 | null | train |
5,800 | msgbeepa | 2007-03-22T22:11:59 | Amazing! A Baby Went To Sleep Brown And Woke Up Redhead! | null | http://www.wikio.com/webinfo?id=15296601 | 1 | 0 | [
5877
] | null | true | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,806 | jadams | 2007-03-22T22:44:34 | Who's In Toronto, Canada? | null | 2 | 5 | [
5808,
5807
] | null | null | invalid_url | null | null | null | null | 2024-11-08T16:37:59 | null | train |
|
5,820 | pg | 2007-03-22T23:55:09 | Chad Perrin: Apollo 1.0 -- not exactly the moon | null | http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=223 | 1 | 1 | [
5841
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,821 | danielha | 2007-03-23T00:10:27 | Google: Fewer Ads, More Money | null | http://blogs.business2.com/beta/2007/03/google_fewer_ad.html#more | 7 | 6 | [
5829,
5823,
5863
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,824 | ulfstein | 2007-03-23T00:14:39 | Crowdsourcing: a million heads is better than one | null | http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/crowdsourcing_million_heads.php | 6 | 2 | [
5840,
5849
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,828 | pg | 2007-03-23T00:34:26 | News.YC first month traffic | null | http://www.ycombinator.com/images/news.yc.1month.png | 7 | 9 | [
5861,
5831,
5916
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,837 | gustaf | 2007-03-23T00:57:14 | Y-Combinator-company heysan! looking for software developer. Meet us at startup school! | null | http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfsgtr7_181cpm27z | 13 | 5 | [
5842,
5850
] | null | null | http_404 | Page Not Found | null | null | Sorry, unable to open the file at this time. Please check the address and try again. Get stuff done with Google DriveApps in Google Drive make it easy to create, store and share online documents, spreadsheets, presentations and more.Learn more at drive.google.com/start/apps. | 2024-11-08T02:25:56 | null | train |
5,839 | zaidf | 2007-03-23T01:01:25 | YouTube: From Concept to Hyper-growth, a presentation by YouTube cofounder | null | http://youtube.com/watch?v=nssfmTo7SZg | 10 | 3 | [
5879,
5905,
5844
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,848 | joshwa | 2007-03-23T01:26:09 | Marketing web apps - some dubious advice from an SEO | null | http://www.carsonified.com/dropsend-sale/web-app-marketing | 2 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,853 | amichail | 2007-03-23T01:49:22 | Java, the evolutionary dead-end: "I've come to the conclusion that it's not really such a bad thing for Java to be." | null | http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2003/04/22/java_the_evolutionary_deadend | 3 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,858 | amichail | 2007-03-23T02:39:07 | Why static typing? "the more things I can make the IDE ... do for me, the more my mind is able to concentrate on more important things" | null | http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2003/05/06/weighing_into_the_static_vs_dynamic_typing_debate | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,862 | amichail | 2007-03-23T03:25:28 | Independent Individuals and Wise Crowds (Talk by James Surowieki, author of the book "The Wisdom of Crowds") | null | http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail468.html | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | Failed after 3 attempts. Last error: Quota exceeded for quota metric 'Generate Content API requests per minute' and limit 'GenerateContent request limit per minute for a region' of service 'generativelanguage.googleapis.com' for consumer 'project_number:854396441450'. | James Surowieki | Independent Individuals and Wise Crowds | null | null |
Our Archived Series Accelerating Change
Adaptive Path
Android Open Conference
Apachecon
Behind the Mic
Bloggercon
BlogHer
Book IT
Burton Group Catalyst
Chaos Communication Congress
DARPA
Digital Democracy
Digital Identity World
Emerging Communications
Emerging Technology Conference
Emerging Telephony Conference
First Tuesday
Flexible Elements with Per Sjöborg
Frontline Security
Gnomedex 4.0
Government 2.0 Summit
Graphing Social Patterns
IEEE Spectrum Radio
Infoworld SOA Forum
Jon Udell's Interviews with Innovators
Kynetx Impact
Larry's World
Max OS X Conference
Memory Lane with Halley Suitt
MeshForum
Money:Tech
MySQL Conference
Open Source Business Conference
Open Source Conference
Opening Move
OSCON Europe
Pop!Tech
Rails Conference
SD Forum
Singularity Summit
SofTECH
Software Conference
Sound Policy with Denise Howell
South by Southwest
Stack Exchange
StackOverflow
Strata Conference
Supernova
Syndicate
Talking Portraits with Tom Parish
Tech Nation
Technometria with Phil Windley
The Gillmor Gang
The Law and IT with Ernest Miller
Thinking Digital Conference
Tools of Change Conference
True Voice with Stowe Boyd
Trust Online
Ubuntu Live
Velocity Conference
Voices in Your Head
Web 2.0 Conference
WebTalk Radio with Rob Greenlee
Where Conference
Zend-PHP Conference
The New Yorker
In technophile circles, the idea that networks and network effects will inherently provide for better decision making is an understood, a truism widely agreed. Author and New Yorker columnist James Surowiecki, argues that while there are many benefits to aggregate decision making, there are several perils and misbehavior that individuals and observers would be wise to take into account. Drawing on research for his recent book The Wisdom of Crowds, Surowiecki explores several areas in which a group's process can result in improper decisions. These failures are traced to the problem of individual humans acting when aware of their membership - the irony of group wisdom is that it is only when a group is unaware of its intelligence that it can be effective. In aggregate, individuals in groups can fall into one of two behavioral traps - either herd behavior (where the group will inherently move in one direction), or imitative behavior, where each member of the group will, for rational reasons, become like any other member of the group. Upon exploring these contradictions, Surowiecki provides several 'food for thought' points by which actors can make better decisions by maintaining weak rather than strong ties with other group members and by tuning into a cacophony of contrary opinions rather than the self-reinforcing common opinions of a small group.
This free podcast is from our Emerging Technology Conference series.
For The Conversations Network:
Post-production audio engineer: Jay Yeary
Website editor: Eric Sinclair
Series producer: Sathyaish Chakravarthy
| 2024-11-08T07:22:37 | null | train |
5,869 | zach | 2007-03-23T04:43:22 | A great new airfare search site (...if you live in Minneapolis) | null | http://www.flyspy.com/ | 3 | 1 | [
5878
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,870 | domp | 2007-03-23T04:44:54 | 5 Business & Entrepreneur podcasts | null | http://www.sumolabs.com/blog/5-business-entrepreneur-podcasts-you-should-be-listening | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,873 | python_kiss | 2007-03-23T05:16:44 | Google's CPA Move: Will Microsoft & Yahoo Have To Buy Their Way Into CPA Game? | null | http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_cpa_microsoft_yahoo_response.php | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,881 | oltsm | 2007-03-23T06:03:08 | using nick names on NYC (news.ycombinator.com) ? | null | 1 | 1 | [
5883
] | null | null | invalid_url | null | null | null | null | 2024-11-08T16:37:59 | null | train |
|
5,885 | staunch | 2007-03-23T06:12:09 | Viaweb Subscription Pricing Page from 1996 | null | http://web.archive.org/web/19961121230735/www.viaweb.com/pricing.html | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | no_error | Viaweb Pricing | null | null |
PRODUCTS AND PRICING
Like our software, our pricing is designed to make your life easy.
Viaweb users pay a flat rate depending on the size of the site.
There is no per-transaction fee, no startup cost, and no minimum
time commitment.
Mini Store$100/month
A mini store has all the features of a regular store, but is
limited to 20 items.
Full Store$300/month
For $300/month you can have a store of up to 1000 items.
Larger Stores
If you want a store with more than 1000 items, call us at
(617) 876-2692, and
we'll quote you a price.
Reseller's Program
Web consultants who want to use Viaweb to design stores for
clients are eligible for a 40% discount off our regular rates.
For details, see our Reseller's Program.
Advertising
Would you like to have an item from your store featured at the
top of Ishops? Call us
at (617) 876-2692 for a quote.
"The public should always be wondering how it is possible to
give so much for the money."
- Henry Ford
| 2024-11-08T08:57:08 | en | train |
5,889 | reitzensteinm | 2007-03-23T06:38:07 | Web Apps 101: Your Three Point Success Plan | null | http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/03/22/web-apps-101-your-three-point-success-plan/ | 8 | 1 | [
5904
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,892 | brett | 2007-03-23T07:04:49 | (old - nov 2005) Techcrunch - Companies I'd like to Profile but don't exist | null | http://www.techcrunch.com/2005/11/21/companies-id-like-to-profile-but-dont-exist/ | 5 | 2 | [
5893
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,896 | sudhirc | 2007-03-23T07:56:50 | Y Combinator Startup News | null | http://news.ycombinator.com/news | 1 | -1 | null | null | true | no_error | Hacker News | null | null |
1. Launch HN: Codebuff (YC F24) – CLI tool that writes code for you
185 points by jahooma 7 hours ago | hide | 155 comments
2. Functional ultrasound through the skull (brainhack.vercel.app)
108 points by lawrenceyan 5 hours ago | hide | 27 comments
3. Using Ghidra and Python to reverse engineer Ecco the Dolphin (32bits.substack.com)
311 points by bbayles 10 hours ago | hide | 77 comments
4. Sustainable Web Interest Group Is Formed (w3.org)
98 points by agumonkey 5 hours ago | hide | 26 comments
5. AI for real-time fusion plasma behavior prediction and manipulation (princeton.edu)
202 points by agomez314 9 hours ago | hide | 103 comments
6. Mushroom Color Atlas (mushroomcoloratlas.com)
155 points by gaws 7 hours ago | hide | 19 comments
7. QNX is now free for anything non-commercial, plus there's an RPi image (qnx.com)
405 points by JohnAtQNX 6 hours ago | hide | 161 comments
8. Show HN: BemiDB – Postgres read replica optimized for analytics (github.com/bemihq)
136 points by exAspArk 7 hours ago | hide | 65 comments
9. Edge Scripting: Build and run applications at the edge (bunny.net)
77 points by gnabgib 6 hours ago | hide | 32 comments
10. Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill (oregonlive.com)
78 points by type0 2 hours ago | hide | 57 comments
11. I'm not mutable, I'm partially instantiated (dnmfarrell.com)
161 points by tlack 13 hours ago | hide | 56 comments
12. Wild Ball (surge.sh)
3 points by mohabnasser 1 hour ago | hide | 1 comment
13. The Brothers Grimm: A Biography (theamericanscholar.org)
37 points by benbreen 7 hours ago | hide | 5 comments
14. Hyperlight: Virtual machine-based security for functions at scale (microsoft.com)
61 points by yoshuaw 7 hours ago | hide | 15 comments
15. Show HN: Draw.Audio – A musical sketchpad using the Web Audio API (draw.audio)
29 points by StreamGobbler 4 hours ago | hide | 8 comments
16. Perhaps Rust Needs "Defer" (gaultier.github.io)
54 points by broken_broken_ 4 hours ago | hide | 51 comments
17. Imaging shapes of atomic nuclei in high-energy nuclear collisions (nature.com)
30 points by bookofjoe 7 hours ago | hide | 3 comments
18. Show HN: Directional antenna alignment using phone motion sensors (conor.link)
17 points by cdebeling 4 hours ago | hide | 3 comments
19. The egg or the chicken? An ancient unicellular says egg (unige.ch)
42 points by giuliomagnifico 6 hours ago | hide | 67 comments
20. Ultraprecise method of aligning 3D semiconductor chips invented (techxplore.com)
120 points by thebeardisred 14 hours ago | hide | 13 comments
21. Five minutes of exercise a day could lower blood pressure (sydney.edu.au)
72 points by geox 4 hours ago | hide | 41 comments
22. Toronto crypto company CEO kidnapped, held for $1M ransom before being released (cbc.ca)
101 points by pr337h4m 4 hours ago | hide | 74 comments
23. Linux Syscall Support (googlesource.com)
151 points by btdmaster 16 hours ago | hide | 93 comments
24. Excerpts from a conversation about personal information management (sachachua.com)
135 points by JNRowe 12 hours ago | hide | 67 comments
25. Bluesky's at Protocol: Pros and Cons for Developers (thenewstack.io)
71 points by steveklabnik 5 hours ago | hide | 29 comments
26. Automat (automat.org)
217 points by surprisetalk 18 hours ago | hide | 79 comments
27. URAvatar: Universal Relightable Gaussian Codec Avatars (junxuan-li.github.io)
103 points by mentalgear 17 hours ago | hide | 13 comments
28. A counter-intuitive guide to better leadership (sudarkoff.com)
94 points by mooreds 6 hours ago | hide | 29 comments
29. Richard A. Cash, who saved millions from dehydration, has died (nytimes.com)
162 points by impish9208 9 hours ago | hide | 44 comments
30. Optery (YC W22) Is Hiring Product Managers and Full Stack Developer (Node.js) (workatastartup.com)
13 hours ago | hide
More
| 2024-11-08T01:05:26 | en | train |
5,899 | pashle | 2007-03-23T08:25:19 | Are people still prepared to pay for software? | null | http://www.freshview.com/thoughts/2007/03/are_people_still_prepared_to_p.html | 13 | 5 | [
5936,
6067,
6043
] | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,912 | sharpshoot | 2007-03-23T11:42:37 | Joyent Slingshot: Allows you to port rails applications which converge between the web and the desktop | null | http://joyeur.com/2007/03/22/joyent-slingshot | 5 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,918 | e1ven | 2007-03-23T13:38:38 | LogoStore rips off Logo design, then claims they made it in the first place. | null | http://daringfireball.net/2007/03/logomaid_rip_off | 3 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,919 | dpapathanasiou | 2007-03-23T13:38:48 | Yuk, Selling (Fractals of Change/Nerd CEO blog) | null | http://blog.tomevslin.com/2005/06/morph_of_a_nerd.html | 2 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
5,920 | dpapathanasiou | 2007-03-23T13:39:39 | Starting as a Sole Practitioner | null | http://blog.tomevslin.com/2005/05/morph_of_a_nerd.html | 1 | 0 | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | null | train |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.