The title of that article is some serious sensationalism. I wonder if journalists during the race to the moon wrote articles like that back then, telling NASA that working so hard was unsustainable even if everyone believed in the mission.
Your profit should always cover your customer acquisition cost. If it does, congratulations keep spending and grow the customer base and start scaling. If it doesn't, refine your business model and keep iterating until it does. It should never be a catch-22 really unless you're doing it wrong.
We applied I think in 2010, got rejected. This was when YC was still fairly young. so arguably competition was even less than it is today.
Our company now does over $100M ARR and still growing. We learned a lot along the way, to be fair, I don't think I would have accepted us either at the time. Just take it as a learning experience and get better, don't let rejection stop you. I couldn't tell you how many "NOs" we've gotten in our company's lifespan.
I, for one, applaud FB's decision to keep him on the board. A lot has been said about this already, but it's true that Silicon Valley is an echo chamber that tends to push out dissenting opinions. It's valuable to have someone on the other side that can challenge your views, as painful as it might be and as much as you might disagree.
Does Silicon Valley really push out dissenting opinions? There seem to be plenty of people with very out of the mainstream and quirky opinions who have thrived in the valley for years and plenty of obnoxious people who try to emulate them by having dissenting opinions for the sake of having a dissenting opinion.
Does Silicon Valley really push out dissenting opinions?
Yes. People will discover that you have nuanced views, then start to talk to basically warn you ominously, or send you home in a cab. People with power will leave you hanging, wondering if your life will be destroyed.
There seem to be plenty of people with very out of the mainstream and quirky opinions who have thrived in the valley for years and plenty of obnoxious people who try to emulate them by having dissenting opinions for the sake of having a dissenting opinion.
The problem isn't the obnoxious people. Obnoxious people thrive on their conflicts with each other. The problem is what happens to reasonable people. The problem is the intolerance of asking questions and of loyal opposition. The problem is that there's so much hostility towards honest inquiry. You're either with them or against them. I remember when the left was horrified at hearing a phrase like that from the Right. Now the Bay Area Left say it.
It's notable that Thiel had right-leaning views for a long time, and it wasn't until he acted on them and helped elect Trump into office that anyone pushed back.
Please don't take HN threads on generic political tangents. They're certain to be repetitive and they lead to flamewars—the two things we most don't want here.
The same things that are "wrong" with donating money to the "wrong" PAC. Nothing. People should be praised for peacefully taking part in one of the longest standing and most successful democratic republics in history.
It's people who try to gain acceptance of violence in US politics who should be condemned. It's people who try and strip away freedom of speech and assembly from others who should be condemned.
It's people who try and strip away freedom of speech and assembly from others who should be condemned.
Like Donald Trump's harsh criticism of protesting NFL players or his near constant denigration of the free press?
What about the people that helped elect this obviously unfit leader? There are plenty of ways to peacefully participate in democracy that I have no problem declaring "wrong."
Like Donald Trump's harsh criticism of protesting NFL players
The whole point of free speech is to be able to express. The current president has always erred on the side of expressing too much, and I'd say that we'd be better off without most of his tweets, or him in office. However, none of that is opposing free speech.
or his near constant denigration of the free press?
The mainstream news media in its death throes is objectively bad.
There are plenty of ways to peacefully participate in democracy that I have no problem declaring "wrong."
That sounds pretty authoritarian. The whole point of freedom is that we are able to be right or wrong. It's our choice. That's "the consent of the governed." Do I wish the election had gone differently? Yes. But simpleminded vilifying of almost 1/2 of the country isn't a constructive approach.
Using your platform as POTUS to criticize people for exercising their free speech is quite a bit different from simply expressing your own contrary opinion.
Helping elect someone is where “political beliefs” start to cross over into “political action.” People should respect each other’s political beliefs; but they’re also entitled to oppose people who take political action that conflicts with their own interests.
The problem with this is that the justification goes both ways and this logic can also be used to disenfranchise people. Voting is a political action, after all. Why is it special? It's a right? Who gets to decide what is and isn't a right?
So I wouldn't want to promote that thinking lest I end up on the wrong end of it due to not being stronger than the other party. That's basically the political law of the jungle. That's not exactly what civilization should strive for, is it?
Of course voting is a right nd helping to get political candidates is a right. But when you exercise your rights in a way that implicates other peoples’ self interest, it is proper for them to push back in a way that would not be appropriate if someone simply expresses a viewpoint.
If I own an apartment building, I have every right to kick out all the tentants and sell the building. The law shouldn’t stop me from doing that. But I can’t complain if people try to stop me, bring bad publicity against me, etc. They’re entitled to do that in a way they wouldn’t be if I simply expressed pro-landlord views.
Of course I agree that both sides have free speech rights to advocate for what they believe in. It's the precise contents of that "etc." that worry me.
The James Damore Google manifesto and the Youtube creator demonetization censorship comes to mind right now. Granted that's only one company, Google, but I think there's a general feeling that if you're not on the left leaning political spectrum, you're going to have your opinions shuttered.
Google has also fired two liberal employees for being insufferable (that are known/public). So perhaps it is more a case of Google firing insufferable people rather than particular views.
His manifesto alone paints such a picture. No anecdotes from others necessary.
One coder with no unique personal success outside being hireable by Google painting the majority of the species as lesser, with cherry picked stats that ignore human history and social trends?
Edit: I don’t care about what numbers he put in his memo. It’s the idea of peddling such a thing in the first place by someone who has no authority
Saying math says we should behave a certain way is enabling authoritarian rule, IMO
Demore forgets that he’s one of billions. He can think what he wants using his numbers, but it’s not iron clad and means nothing given that the data is generated in a highly curated social structure
It’s less “his math is off” and more “why do I care who this Demore fellow is? Because he has math? Meh lots of people do. It’s not very interesting math and theory.”
That’s not likely to connect with this crowd.
Pretty self-aggrandizing and full of shit, IMO. Not something a “place of business” as Google has painted itself in these situations, should support
to be fair your opinion is less scientifically rigorous than the actual scientific papers he cited which was his formulation of data less than opinion. You can disagree with him & those papers but I do think a blanket dismissal of him as a person is difficult to infer from a single inter-office memo
Many people who assert things about James Damore's memo are engaging in the same dishonest anti-science tactics which Climate Deniers and Evolution Deniers engage in. Science is not a democracy. People also don't get to impute James Damore's motives just because they feel strongly about it.
Here is a reasonable and cogent critique of the Damore memo. Liana K makes a very good argument that James Damore is wrong. However, note how many general falsehoods about the memo she calls out.
He made comments outside his paper that women just aren’t as good at men or more of them would find satisfaction in this
I’m not linking it because it’s not like this is an esoteric notion that requires extreme vetting
It’s one a-hole who in the big picture isn’t important to anyone but himself. Something I think this forum and society as a whole have lost sight of
I have my own take on it. Add some variables he excluded and his whole thesis goes to shit. But it still says nothing but math is like English; it can be made to produce a result that tells whatever story we want
Some folks seem to think every formula peddles some inherent truth of reality, which is nonsense
I don't think it's a direct intolerance of other opinions because they're not the same but because they're not capable of coexistent in a "we know our beliefs are right and therefore anything incompatible with our beliefs is wrong" sort of way.
Look at the comments in here on any article about something that's vaguely political or a social issue in a flyover state, rural are or "less developed" country. There's this weird implication of slight superiority.
A lot of them often read with a sort of pro colonialism white mans's burden sort of tone. It's like everyone else isn't capable of figuring out their own problems and needs the smart people to rule them. There's also a sort of Christian missionary kind of undertone where everyone who doesn't believe like we do faces eternal damnation so it's our responsibility to get them to shun their existing beliefs and convert. It's not a malevolent intolerance, it's a saving you for your own good kind of intolerance.
I can't quite put my finger on it (so I'm drawing parallels instead) but I don't like it.
I don't think it's a direct intolerance of other opinions because they're not the same
Okay, so you don't have to have a bit-accurate copy.
but because they're not capable of coexistent in a "we know our beliefs are right and therefore anything incompatible with our beliefs is wrong" sort of way.
The above is pretty much a definition of intolerance.
Yes, intolerance is intolerance. Being able to abstract away the intolerance and treat it as though it's just the result of being confronted by incompatible beliefs makes it easier to rationalize doing it because it makes it partly the result of other people having the "wrong" beliefs and therefore not wholly your fault.
Agreed. Being good at math or some other technical topic doesn’t mean you’re not still a human who is easily emotionally manipulated.
Science relies on bad experiments. But of course folks like Thiel and Demore act like they got it right and can just keep on doing, cause of a sense of privilege.
Thiel isn’t doing the work himself. That’s impossible. But rules should be avoided. Relies on society to collectively provide, but says society isn’t allowed to expect anything back.
IMO, those sorts seem to be especially easy to manipulate emotionallly. Patted on the back all their lives, but if you should try to stop them they get salty. Forgetting that they’re still one of many.
Look at all the “anarchist” gamers and hacker types with no identity otherwise. Lots of dismissive rhetoric towards women and minorities, based solely on emotional opinion
They grew up with that “on in the background” and just kept tinkering and building on their things, otherwise, while the world (mom) made sure they had food and clean laundry.
So the rest of the world should be like mom to these emotional babies.
They may not go to church, and may now be anti-God, but what patterns were embedded in their youth that are not recallable verbatim, but see the world through same as usual expectations.
There is so much we don’t know still about the human brain and consciousness.
That isn't the operating dichotomy anymore. Most modern conservatives are collectivists. Nationalism, racial identity movements, and religious traditionalism are all to varying degrees collectivist. Any talk of saving our culture, race, etc. is collectivist.
I thought it was the view that women and men were different, and that an embrace of that fact would reveal askew sex ratios for different occupations.
Also, what group claims individualism as their value? Liberals or conservatives? I suspect many people would say they are pro individual freedom and rights when framed as individualism vs collectivism. Also, do conservatives champion individualism or community?
The problem isn't that Thiel is contrarian, the problem is that many of his beliefs (e.g. women's suffrage being a mistake) make for a hostile work environment.
You're not the first to reframe the issue to Thiel being simply a person who challenges conventional wisdom. As though all contrarians are alike and automatically beyond criticism.
Not quite. His point is pretty simple: womans suffrage is a reason we are not as libertarian a country as before. Of course as a libertarian this makes him sad, but it does not imply it was a mistake - that was an assumption on your part.
"Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron"
Cato later updated the essay and Thiel clarified that he does not want to disenfranchise women:
"While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better."
IMO this belief about democracy should be way more controversial than essentially stating woman don't vote libertarian.
Society needs to be a bit better at differentiating exploratory intellectual conversations from statements of belief. It shouldn't be so difficult to have reasoned discussions about controversial topics.
To your second point, he never retracted his original statement because he never said woman shouldn't vote. What statement would you like him to retract? For your sake he still clarified his beliefs "I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised".
You edited your post to remove the first sentence of Thiel's response: "It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away". That's a deflection, because it's a truism and doesn't address the criticism. Of course women's right to vote won't be taken away, but Thiel still believes that women's voting rights are not compatible with a free (meaning libertarian) society.
He laments women have the right to vote and he never retracted that statement.
Sorry, but the interpretation that Mr. Thiel just has no faith in democracy improving things further seems much more reasonable. Given the entire corpus, do you think Peter Thiel would assert that life would improve if large swathes of the populace were disenfranchised? Please provide some quotes.
> do you think Peter Thiel would assert that life would improve if large swathes of the populace were disenfranchised
Yes! He literally says so:
Thiel: I no longer believe that freedom [meaning capitalism] and democracy are compatible.
Thiel wants to save capitalism, and therefore rejects democracy because in his view you can't have both. That means he wants to disenfranchise everybody except the monied.
Thiel wants to save capitalism, and therefore rejects democracy because in his view you can't have both. That means he wants to disenfranchise everybody except the monied
I think his view is a bit more nuanced than that. I think that he'd say that the monied are the only ones really enfranchised now, and that public opinion is currently manipulated by those actors through their influence over the media. In such conditions, we'd expect any democracy to be dysfunctional.
The argument for removing him isn't that he believes the "wrong things", it's that he actively worked to elect someone who acts in ways contrary to Facebook's stated goals ("give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together") and contrary to the well-being of portions of their employees and user base.
That does not make it wrong. If you want to argue that a board member who gave a speech for Hillary at the DNC should also be removed, you can make that argument.
To indulge you: what specific policy proposal did Hillary make and Trump oppose that would be harmful to Facebook employees or users, or contrary to Facebook's goals?
Hillary seemed much more keen to bombing brown people while Trump mostly wanted to disrupt their travel plans. She was also much more hawkish specifically towards Russian allies and my biggest fear from her was kicking off WW3.
My best recollection is that neither one of them made any concrete proposal to significantly change the status quo on foreign wars. Trump did some handwaving, but no specific proposals. I could be misremembering, however.
If you want to be as cynical as possible any evidence you may have heard about Trump having ties to the Russians is evidence he would be less likely to start a nuclear war with them or continue the proxy war against Russia in Syria.
Trump specifically campaigned on withdrawing from Afghanistan as an "un-winnable" war. Since winning the election he has unfortunately doubled-down on the violence of his predecessors.
There was a somewhat popular interview where Bill O'Reilly asked Trump about Syria, stating if Putin helps Assad fight off ISIS, then Russia/Putin will own Syria. Trump basically said America had its own problems, if we go in we'll own it, why would we want it? Of course he reversed this after election too.
Bad ideas deserve to be analyzed, argued against, and demolished. Bullying people into grudging silence isn't pushing out bad ideas. Rather, the history of such behavior is that it's a tactic for people to try and prop up bad ideas which can't stand on their own.
When one finds oneself doubling down on an ideology with more acrimony and fervor, it's a clear sign that one is on the wrong side of history. When one is bullying others into agreement instead of convincing others, it's a clear sign that one is on the wrong side of history. When one must convince oneself that another's human rights are to be sacrificed for the greater good, one is on the wrong side of history.
Good ideas stand on their own. Good ideas can convince.
Assuming rational, non emotional, actors, which is hardly ever the case. People like Alex Jones have an audience, but bring a good argument to their feet, that say Sandy Hook wasn't a false flag, and you're unlikely to get a change in belief.
If we all had infinite time and infinite energy we could hear out every bad idea, analyze it, argue against it, and demolish it. But we don't. So we sometimes just have to say, "Y'know what: It's a bad idea and we need to set it aside and put our energy into good ideas."
"Y'know what: It's a bad idea and we need to set it aside and put our energy into good ideas."
That right there is an attempt to convince. However, if people then took it on themselves to punch, harass, or get the advocates of those ideas fired, then that would be an attempt to suppress.
I believe it was the NY Times that did a study in the 30s to find out how people who voted for the NSDAP felt. Amazingly they were being pushed out, many kept the affiliation secret as to avoid being fired, loosing their home and friends. And yet pushing them out did not stop the entire thing turning into a world war...
Thiel has had plenty of interesting opinions and nobody faulted him for talking about them. When he helped elect a senile crazy person to be president though, that was just awful. Not something that challenges anyone's world view. Nobody has been enlightened by that process or by Trump.
The fact that he still unapologetically believes Trump was better than Clinton betrays his underlying thinking and his lack of commitment to reassessing his beliefs.
Yeah there's definitely some things that are taboo to talk about because it's too political. I for one, am a liberal gun owner, which gives me a unique perspective in that I understand where a lot of liberals are coming from, but I also understand how conservatives feel when liberals constantly attack their viewpoints and try to silence them. It's funny how many debates I get into with other liberals about guns when they've never held or shot a gun in their life and yet claim to know everything about it. And the amount of moral superiority they hold around their viewpoints is staggering, truly a "I'm right you're wrong and an idiot" mentality.
If there's one thing I recommend everyone to do is just listen to the other side and at least TRY to see their perspective even if you disagree.
My team and I were rejected back in the day for our first startup idea, which ultimately didn't work but we eventually pivoted to a company now doing $100M+ in annual revenues. I don't really blame YC for the rejection as the original idea probably wasn't very good, but just pointing it out there that you can still be really successful without being in YC.
Touch of Modern - Frontend, Backend, or Mobile Engineers - San Francisco, CA - full-time
We're the fastest growing men's ecommerce 2.0 website. We're focused around modern lifestyle products that is hand curated and designed for discovery commerce.
If you have at least 2-4 years of solid engineering experience, please take a look at our opportunities.
