5 ms·

also, "pre-birth" and "pre-kindergarten"

by pizu 11y ago

michaelochurch 11y ago
Well, over 90% of getting funded by VCs is stuff that happens before birth, so yes, that is literally true.
- trhway 11y ago
  location, location, location... Basically you need to invest in fundamentals while the asset itself is at its cheapest, and "not yet existing" may happen to be among the cheapest states of the asset
- throwaway435231 11y ago
  Michael, what you've just written is a gratuitously negative comment[1] that adds nothing. Guess what, 99.999% of getting funded happened in Earth's prehistory of 4.5 billion years, at any point during which things could have gone differently and precluded humanity and culture. Out of the remaining 0.001% - 45,000 years - scarcely ten thousand consisted of the establishment of western civilization and only the scant past few decades have established an Internet and a culture where literally anyone in the western world with an idea can start making it a reality, on a physical (if not cultural) level - i.e. physically nothing is required that the average person cannot access. Physically you do not need access to anything except knowledge and culture, which are actively working to take away. You are stealing. The way to expand this opportunity is not to focus on the first 99.99999% of history, but the next ten years. You add nothing and take significant amounts away from that. I'm sick of your negativity. Here's a fact: I'm not asian, but asians are far more likely to get funded. SO WHAT! How does that change whether I'm taking the time to build something? Michael go build something. Anyone can call people names. People should downvote your negative comments on sight. Besides being policy here, anyone who is downvoting you is literally creating good in the world. Because you are actively preventing the expansion of a culture of building. We might not have the power to get a sixty year old who had to go work early in life and received no formal education funded, regardless of this person's merits or ideas. But we can - and should, are required to - downvote you, and contribute to a positive culture where in five years, when that person is sixty-five, and has spent the past five years building something, he can be. [1] the definition of which is that it is not new, not useful, not insightful, and adds absolutely nothing while being negative. Similar to if you said to a commenter: "by the way YOU SUCK at every skill, when compared to Mozart at music". This is undeniably true, he started at the age of four and specialized very hard. It is a comment nobody would disagree with on a literal level. It is also an absolutely worthless comment that adds nothing: the only reason anyone would write it is so that they could say the word "YOU SUCK" and then weasel out of it. Of course you should get downvoted, so hard you delete your comments which add nothing. Go build something, Michael.
  - discardorama 11y ago
    Using a throwaway account to attack someone is not cool. If you have the balls (or the equivalent for the other gender), stand up and make the comment in your own name.
    - throwaway435232 11y ago
      (same user, I lost the pwd). I wouldn't touch Michael's negative comments, nor do I want to prop up criticism with a username. he needs to just stop posting gratuitously negative thing about startups (most of what moves him to comment), which are not constructive, and it's up to the rest of us to downvote gratuitously negative things until he learns that this is not the forum for them, unless he starts phrasing them constructively. the other respondent already tried to make this about me ("Until you're a successful founder from a bad family background and no history of founding startups, no ivy league education"...) so I am glad that I didn't get into this under a normal account. this does not seem like a productive thread.
      - Phlarp 11y ago
        Notice how other people in this thread can level criticisms at both the topic of discussion and towards one another while flying their own handle? Notice how you cannot do this?
        throwaway435232 11y ago
        given that my main point is that this level of discourse is totally inappropriate for hackernews, there is no reason I would engage in this. it's like feeding a troll. if there were something substantial to discuss, that would be a different story.
  - krisdol 11y ago
    Until you're a successful founder from a bad family background and no history of founding startups, no ivy league education, and no nest egg to fall back in your 20s, you shouldn't make such aggressive rants.

also, "pre-birth" and "pre-kindergarten"

by pizu 11y ago

also, "pre-birth" and "pre-kindergarten"

michaelochurch 11y ago

Well, over 90% of getting funded by VCs is stuff that happens before birth, so yes, that is literally true.

trhway 11y ago
location, location, location... Basically you need to invest in fundamentals while the asset itself is at its cheapest, and "not yet existing" may happen to be among the cheapest states of the asset
throwaway435231 11y ago
Michael, what you've just written is a gratuitously negative comment[1] that adds nothing. Guess what, 99.999% of getting funded happened in Earth's prehistory of 4.5 billion years, at any point during which things could have gone differently and precluded humanity and culture. Out of the remaining 0.001% - 45,000 years - scarcely ten thousand consisted of the establishment of western civilization and only the scant past few decades have established an Internet and a culture where literally anyone in the western world with an idea can start making it a reality, on a physical (if not cultural) level - i.e. physically nothing is required that the average person cannot access. Physically you do not need access to anything except knowledge and culture, which are actively working to take away. You are stealing. The way to expand this opportunity is not to focus on the first 99.99999% of history, but the next ten years. You add nothing and take significant amounts away from that. I'm sick of your negativity. Here's a fact: I'm not asian, but asians are far more likely to get funded. SO WHAT! How does that change whether I'm taking the time to build something? Michael go build something. Anyone can call people names. People should downvote your negative comments on sight. Besides being policy here, anyone who is downvoting you is literally creating good in the world. Because you are actively preventing the expansion of a culture of building. We might not have the power to get a sixty year old who had to go work early in life and received no formal education funded, regardless of this person's merits or ideas. But we can - and should, are required to - downvote you, and contribute to a positive culture where in five years, when that person is sixty-five, and has spent the past five years building something, he can be. [1] the definition of which is that it is not new, not useful, not insightful, and adds absolutely nothing while being negative. Similar to if you said to a commenter: "by the way YOU SUCK at every skill, when compared to Mozart at music". This is undeniably true, he started at the age of four and specialized very hard. It is a comment nobody would disagree with on a literal level. It is also an absolutely worthless comment that adds nothing: the only reason anyone would write it is so that they could say the word "YOU SUCK" and then weasel out of it. Of course you should get downvoted, so hard you delete your comments which add nothing. Go build something, Michael.
- discardorama 11y ago
  Using a throwaway account to attack someone is not cool. If you have the balls (or the equivalent for the other gender), stand up and make the comment in your own name.
  - throwaway435232 11y ago
    (same user, I lost the pwd). I wouldn't touch Michael's negative comments, nor do I want to prop up criticism with a username. he needs to just stop posting gratuitously negative thing about startups (most of what moves him to comment), which are not constructive, and it's up to the rest of us to downvote gratuitously negative things until he learns that this is not the forum for them, unless he starts phrasing them constructively. the other respondent already tried to make this about me ("Until you're a successful founder from a bad family background and no history of founding startups, no ivy league education"...) so I am glad that I didn't get into this under a normal account. this does not seem like a productive thread.
    - Phlarp 11y ago
      Notice how other people in this thread can level criticisms at both the topic of discussion and towards one another while flying their own handle? Notice how you cannot do this?
      - throwaway435232 11y ago
        given that my main point is that this level of discourse is totally inappropriate for hackernews, there is no reason I would engage in this. it's like feeding a troll. if there were something substantial to discuss, that would be a different story.
- krisdol 11y ago
  Until you're a successful founder from a bad family background and no history of founding startups, no ivy league education, and no nest egg to fall back in your 20s, you shouldn't make such aggressive rants.