4 ms·

Survive and Thrive

63 points by tzier 11y ago

dk8996 11y ago
In before "survivorship bias". In any case, it's amazing that so many successful companies were in that building.
- gkoberger 11y ago
  "Survive" is the one bit of advice that, by definition, is immune to survivorship bias. Basically, Justin is saying "the ones that survived are the ones that survived". It's stating the painfully obvious, however it's a simple contrast to the normal "strategic" advice. Paul Graham writes about this a lot: http://paulgraham.com/aord.html http://paulgraham.com/aord.html http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html http://paulgraham.com/badeconomy.html http://paulgraham.com/badeconomy.html
  - ak39 11y ago
    Thanks for this. That PG article was sobering for me. All the while reading it, I had Shawshank's "Get busy living or get busy dying" playing in my head. :-(
- idlewords 11y ago
  It's amazing that this pure meritocracy happens to favor a small group of friends!
  - gkoberger 11y ago
    They weren't friends beforehand, and most had no prior Silicon Valley connections.
svisser 11y ago
"I deeply believe that if three recent college grads (and one dropout) could turn an online reality tv show into a billion dollar company then literally anyone can be successful online." There are so many things wrong with drawing that conclusion.
- FlailFast 11y ago
  Yeah...it's akin to saying "I believe that [extreme outliers happen], then [they define the general rule]." Their outcome is wonderful, and I'm happy for them, but it's so many sigmas from the norm they may as well be Toyota consultants from the 90s.
  - x43b 11y ago
    "it's so many sigmas from the norm they may as well be Toyota consultants from the 90s" I am not catching the reference. Can you explain or link to something I can read. Are you talking about Kaizen?
    - fleevy 11y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma
  - DesaiAshu 11y ago
    He's not saying everyone will be successful, he simply means there's nothing innately special about people who are successful and you shouldn't rule yourself out because you don't think you're [insert adjective here] enough. You need to be a moderately smart person who works hard, follows the right formula and gets a little lucky. You might still fail but it's definitely worth a shot.
- lquist 11y ago
  No there really isn't. Justin is getting at a truth about startups: "If you can just avoid dying, you get rich." Paul Graham wrote that 8 years ago (http://paulgraham.com/die.html http://paulgraham.com/die.html), and I wonder if it was (subconsciously?) an inspiration to this post by Justin? My guess is that it's actually more likely that Justin feels this truth intuitively. I believe that this is a truth that is so fundamental to startups that if I could ask founders only one question when investing, it would be, "When will you give up?"
  - 11y ago
staunch 11y ago
> What each of the companies had in common was that they built something that was useful, created a feedback loop of getting user feedback and iterating on the product, and kept at their startups long enough for the market they were in to mature. > I deeply believe that if three recent college grads (and one dropout) could turn an online reality tv show into a billion dollar company then literally anyone can be successful online. Not anyone, but far more people than currently are. The only problem is that very few people get the opportunity required. How many teams get help from YC followed by millions of funding from other investors? How many can spend 5 years working on a project that isn't profitable? As a percentage of people, it's far below 0.1%. When there's a scalable YC alternative (like equity crowdfunding, maybe) we'll see just how many good technology businesses are possible. It seems nearly unlimited, if you're aiming for Star Trek. I think there are tens of thousands of 2-10 person teams that are waiting for an opportunity to show us what they have.
- graeme 11y ago
  You don't need funding for all internet projects. I had none, and run a successful online company. Supports me, and I'm free of my time. Now, not everyone could have done what I did, but it's far more than 0.1% of people.
- idlewords 11y ago
  That's a pretty passive attitude to take. One amazing thing about software projects, for a technical person, is that you don't have to wait around to find someone to give you money to play with.
  - staunch 11y ago
    I was suggesting the reason more people (especially non-technical people like the author) don't have successful startups. But it's also true that creating something like Twitch is nearly impossible without funding. They could not have bootstrapped it for 5 years because it was/is not profitable, even though it might be a great long-term business.
    - 11y ago
philfrasty 11y ago
If you ever have the chance to attend a talk of Justin you should. Rad guy. Hope he still wears his giant golden watch!

Survive and Thrive

63 points by tzier 11y ago

dk8996 11y ago

In before "survivorship bias". In any case, it's amazing that so many successful companies were in that building.

gkoberger 11y ago
"Survive" is the one bit of advice that, by definition, is immune to survivorship bias. Basically, Justin is saying "the ones that survived are the ones that survived". It's stating the painfully obvious, however it's a simple contrast to the normal "strategic" advice. Paul Graham writes about this a lot: http://paulgraham.com/aord.html http://paulgraham.com/aord.html http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html http://paulgraham.com/badeconomy.html http://paulgraham.com/badeconomy.html
- ak39 11y ago
  Thanks for this. That PG article was sobering for me. All the while reading it, I had Shawshank's "Get busy living or get busy dying" playing in my head. :-(
idlewords 11y ago
It's amazing that this pure meritocracy happens to favor a small group of friends!
- gkoberger 11y ago
  They weren't friends beforehand, and most had no prior Silicon Valley connections.

svisser 11y ago

"I deeply believe that if three recent college grads (and one dropout) could turn an online reality tv show into a billion dollar company then literally anyone can be successful online." There are so many things wrong with drawing that conclusion.

FlailFast 11y ago
Yeah...it's akin to saying "I believe that [extreme outliers happen], then [they define the general rule]." Their outcome is wonderful, and I'm happy for them, but it's so many sigmas from the norm they may as well be Toyota consultants from the 90s.
- x43b 11y ago
  "it's so many sigmas from the norm they may as well be Toyota consultants from the 90s" I am not catching the reference. Can you explain or link to something I can read. Are you talking about Kaizen?
  - fleevy 11y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma
- DesaiAshu 11y ago
  He's not saying everyone will be successful, he simply means there's nothing innately special about people who are successful and you shouldn't rule yourself out because you don't think you're [insert adjective here] enough. You need to be a moderately smart person who works hard, follows the right formula and gets a little lucky. You might still fail but it's definitely worth a shot.
lquist 11y ago
No there really isn't. Justin is getting at a truth about startups: "If you can just avoid dying, you get rich." Paul Graham wrote that 8 years ago (http://paulgraham.com/die.html http://paulgraham.com/die.html), and I wonder if it was (subconsciously?) an inspiration to this post by Justin? My guess is that it's actually more likely that Justin feels this truth intuitively. I believe that this is a truth that is so fundamental to startups that if I could ask founders only one question when investing, it would be, "When will you give up?"
- 11y ago

staunch 11y ago

> What each of the companies had in common was that they built something that was useful, created a feedback loop of getting user feedback and iterating on the product, and kept at their startups long enough for the market they were in to mature. > I deeply believe that if three recent college grads (and one dropout) could turn an online reality tv show into a billion dollar company then literally anyone can be successful online. Not anyone, but far more people than currently are. The only problem is that very few people get the opportunity required. How many teams get help from YC followed by millions of funding from other investors? How many can spend 5 years working on a project that isn't profitable? As a percentage of people, it's far below 0.1%. When there's a scalable YC alternative (like equity crowdfunding, maybe) we'll see just how many good technology businesses are possible. It seems nearly unlimited, if you're aiming for Star Trek. I think there are tens of thousands of 2-10 person teams that are waiting for an opportunity to show us what they have.

graeme 11y ago
You don't need funding for all internet projects. I had none, and run a successful online company. Supports me, and I'm free of my time. Now, not everyone could have done what I did, but it's far more than 0.1% of people.
idlewords 11y ago
That's a pretty passive attitude to take. One amazing thing about software projects, for a technical person, is that you don't have to wait around to find someone to give you money to play with.
- staunch 11y ago
  I was suggesting the reason more people (especially non-technical people like the author) don't have successful startups. But it's also true that creating something like Twitch is nearly impossible without funding. They could not have bootstrapped it for 5 years because it was/is not profitable, even though it might be a great long-term business.
  - 11y ago

philfrasty 11y ago

If you ever have the chance to attend a talk of Justin you should. Rad guy. Hope he still wears his giant golden watch!