6 ms·

One thing I agree with and one I disagree with: - I've always thought it was silly my university had an Entrepreneurship major. Starting a company is probably

One thing I agree with and one I disagree with: - I've always thought it was silly my university had an Entrepreneurship major. Starting a company is probably much better achieved by studying something technical or going deep into a problem space and seeing a problem there, not a generic "entrepreneurship" curriculum. - I think startups starting as side projects was more of an artifact of the early YC days where startups could just be simple software that some engineers built on nights and weekends. Increasingly I feel like the next generation of startups is more capital intensive and requires more time commitment from deeply technical talent. Not in 100% of cases obviously.

jchonphoenix 24d ago
Much of yc advice is correct. But much of it is also dated as you're noticing
nxobject 24d ago
> Increasingly I feel like the next generation of startups is more capital intensive and requires more time commitment from deeply technical talent. Would that be more like other engineering fields? An interesting comparison would be aerospace, for example – it took 15 years to build the first A380, and tens of thousands of indispensable technical niches.
- ErigmolCt 23d ago
  You probably aren't building the next Airbus in a dorm room, but you might build a weird propulsion prototype, simulation tool, control system, manufacturing technique that eventually becomes the reason a company exists
- elictronic 23d ago
  I have no idea how you could think a startup is comparable to a project that ended up costing 25 billion dollars to devolop and involved something like 15k engineers. It's began development in 1988 and the first flight wasn't until 2005. I want to ask you, what do you think a startup is?
  - nxobject 23d ago
    I'm a little confused by what you mean with your question? I was trying to ask what features of an engineering discipline OP was pointing towards with his comparison. I wasn't intending to describe what the next generation of startups might look like!
- amoshebb 23d ago
  It’s not obvious to me that a “nobody wants this” megaproject by a decades old multinational forced to succeed by government mandate wasting over a decade debating national workshare is a great example of a “startup in aerospace”. There’s tons of startups making cool fused harnesses and phased arrays and trying to get every permutation of diesel and electric and hydrogen engines certified. Drones and rc aircraft spawn many “built in a dorm room” prototypes for people who don’t value their eyebrows
  - nxobject 23d ago
    > It’s not obvious to me that a “nobody wants this” megaproject by a decades old multinational forced to succeed by government mandate wasting over a decade debating national workshare is a great example of a “startup in aerospace”. It looks like I wrote that in a confusing way! My intention was to ask about what features of the engineering discipline was motivating OP's comparison. Maybe a better series of comparisons would have been... - the 747 – program conception in '63, delivery in '69; – the A350 - first sales in '05, delivery in '13; which I think captures the slow pace, and large dependency chain, of any significant program beyond a revision.
ErigmolCt 23d ago
I think side projects still matter, but maybe in a slightly different way now. They don't necessarily have to become the company themselves. They can be how you discover the problem, test an approach, meet the people you eventually build the company with
bluegatty 23d ago
"Starting a company is probably much better achieved by studying something technical or going deep into a problem space and seeing a problem there, not a generic "entrepreneurship" curriculum." I think this is beyond bad. The #1 thing anyone could ever to do study entrepreneurship is to do 'case studies'. Liteally just learning/observing how they work - the nature of founding, structure, power relationships, what debt and equity are for. Learning 'how a VC firm' operates, and indeed how other kinds of investment bankers work is golden. HBS is almost a glorified 2 years of basic concepts + 'a lot of case studies'. Learning how IBM, Standard Oil, Apple and a host of companies you've never heard of operate is deeply enlightening. The 'Naive By Design' approach by the YC people is almost toxic. There is definitely some insight in it - that 'seasoned executives' are probably worse at starting small companies in many ways, but, understanding why that is is really important. It has a lot to do with risk, the kinds of things CEO's of established companies are good at etc.. It's as absurd as saying 'Don't Learn Nursing By Studying Nursing - Just Do Music and Engineering'. Doing 'projects' however, is a wonderful idea.

jchonphoenix 24d ago

Much of yc advice is correct. But much of it is also dated as you're noticing

nxobject 24d ago

> Increasingly I feel like the next generation of startups is more capital intensive and requires more time commitment from deeply technical talent. Would that be more like other engineering fields? An interesting comparison would be aerospace, for example – it took 15 years to build the first A380, and tens of thousands of indispensable technical niches.

ErigmolCt 23d ago
You probably aren't building the next Airbus in a dorm room, but you might build a weird propulsion prototype, simulation tool, control system, manufacturing technique that eventually becomes the reason a company exists
elictronic 23d ago
I have no idea how you could think a startup is comparable to a project that ended up costing 25 billion dollars to devolop and involved something like 15k engineers. It's began development in 1988 and the first flight wasn't until 2005. I want to ask you, what do you think a startup is?
- nxobject 23d ago
  I'm a little confused by what you mean with your question? I was trying to ask what features of an engineering discipline OP was pointing towards with his comparison. I wasn't intending to describe what the next generation of startups might look like!
amoshebb 23d ago
It’s not obvious to me that a “nobody wants this” megaproject by a decades old multinational forced to succeed by government mandate wasting over a decade debating national workshare is a great example of a “startup in aerospace”. There’s tons of startups making cool fused harnesses and phased arrays and trying to get every permutation of diesel and electric and hydrogen engines certified. Drones and rc aircraft spawn many “built in a dorm room” prototypes for people who don’t value their eyebrows
- nxobject 23d ago
  > It’s not obvious to me that a “nobody wants this” megaproject by a decades old multinational forced to succeed by government mandate wasting over a decade debating national workshare is a great example of a “startup in aerospace”. It looks like I wrote that in a confusing way! My intention was to ask about what features of the engineering discipline was motivating OP's comparison. Maybe a better series of comparisons would have been... - the 747 – program conception in '63, delivery in '69; – the A350 - first sales in '05, delivery in '13; which I think captures the slow pace, and large dependency chain, of any significant program beyond a revision.

ErigmolCt 23d ago

I think side projects still matter, but maybe in a slightly different way now. They don't necessarily have to become the company themselves. They can be how you discover the problem, test an approach, meet the people you eventually build the company with

bluegatty 23d ago

"Starting a company is probably much better achieved by studying something technical or going deep into a problem space and seeing a problem there, not a generic "entrepreneurship" curriculum." I think this is beyond bad. The #1 thing anyone could ever to do study entrepreneurship is to do 'case studies'. Liteally just learning/observing how they work - the nature of founding, structure, power relationships, what debt and equity are for. Learning 'how a VC firm' operates, and indeed how other kinds of investment bankers work is golden. HBS is almost a glorified 2 years of basic concepts + 'a lot of case studies'. Learning how IBM, Standard Oil, Apple and a host of companies you've never heard of operate is deeply enlightening. The 'Naive By Design' approach by the YC people is almost toxic. There is definitely some insight in it - that 'seasoned executives' are probably worse at starting small companies in many ways, but, understanding why that is is really important. It has a lot to do with risk, the kinds of things CEO's of established companies are good at etc.. It's as absurd as saying 'Don't Learn Nursing By Studying Nursing - Just Do Music and Engineering'. Doing 'projects' however, is a wonderful idea.