You’re not changing the world
m.signalvnoise.com
m.signalvnoise.com
And look, some of them do end up changing the world.
So, if you as a founder have the desire to reshape the world in the way you want it, then you should not try because the probability of success is low? That doesn't make sense.
Is the goal to have people lower their expectations? Ok, that's at least a psycho-social argument for contentment, but are they preaching that people should embrace mindfulness?
Generally DHH and Fried like to antagonize the idea of moonshot startups with audacious plans and goals stated as such. Sure, some of them are silly and over the top and worth a bit of ribbing, however it's been years now and (having been on the receiving end of one of their rants) it seems entirely unfocused with no prescription for WHO exactly should be trying to do moonshots that actually do "change the world." After all they admit that it is possible to do, so why should people not try?
Make no mistake, they are trying to influence people - like we all are - by writing these posts. What's the purpose of them if none of it matters?
The point is that you don't advertise it unless you're full of shit. It's a bullshit marketing/hiring tactic.
If you really want to change the world, you make a thing, and focus on the thing, not on how you're "changing the world".
"Set out to do good work. Set out to be fair in your dealings with customers, employees, and reality. Leave a lasting impressions on the people you touch, and worry less (or not at all!) about changing the world. Chances are you won’t, and if you do, it’s not going to be because you said you would."
as: You shouldn't try to make a huge impact because just saying you would won't get you there.
Which by the way DHH is wrong about what Jack Dorsey wanted Twitter to be. A few of his early quotes
"My goal is to simplify complexity. I just want to build stuff that really simplifies our base human interaction."
"We get to design what we want to see in the world rather than doing what other people think should be done."
Doesn't get much more "changing the world" language than that.
> Doesn't get much more "changing the world"
> language than that.
That's a self fulfilling prophecy though, is it not? If you aren't somewhat delusional (aka optimistic) about the scale of what you set out to do, then the probability of major outcome - is going to be reduced.
Basically, if you set small local goals then the chances that you'll even desire a global goal - let alone reach them - are likely an order of magnitude smaller than possible.
Using his example, had Zuckerburg followed this advice he would have sold to yahoo having optimized locally. Instead he said, no I want to change the world (aka literally connect the world) so I am going to try and do that.
By the time Yahoo made their offer in 2008, Facebook was already the biggest social network that had ever existed with an incredible growth curve. At that point it's not just some naive pie-in-the-sky dream, it's a calculated risk.
This is very different from the thousands of wannabes that paint this grand vision in order to attract naive young talent. That's what DHH & co bristle against—the mythology of SV perpetuated by VCs to get the best and brightest to work 16-hour days to increase their wealth for a risk-adjusted return way below what they could get at a normal job.
Personally with a couple decades of experience under my belt it's hard not to be a little cynical about the whole dog and pony show. I got into this because I liked to build things on computers, not because of some founder's charisma or promises of riches.
I welcome their voice. I think it’s a nice counterbalance. We need both kinds of voices in the room.
For example just from this post alone:
These people have "delusions of grandeur" and "congitive dissonance" are making an "existential cry for help."
But who knows, maybe they are indeed psychopathic attention seekers like you suggest. It's impossible for us to prove it one way or another, so I largely find that an irrelevant detail. I generally agree with the general spirit of what they're advocating for even if sometimes they don't quite hit the mark.
Amusing how he talks about "the Twitter mob" and "their" pitchforks as if "they" were someone else, though.
It will mostly mid way through their success did they realize they really could "shape" the world for the better.
Now a days every single bloody ( mostly American )company, not only just Startup, decide they should have a mission statement to change the world. And if you are not in this dream, you shouldn't be working for this company.
DHH is merely stating the obvious truth. You really aren't changing the world or you dont have to and that is ok. But in the Silicon Valley world of absolute optimism, stating such boring truth is consider pessimistic.
I don't actually believe this. Maybe notch was the only one that this could really be true for. All the people you mentioned in those positions have an obsessive drive for success/power - which defacto implies molding the world to how you want it to be.
While it might be true that they didn't know the exact path that they were on was going to be the thing, they had an inkling which they put a shitload of effort into and followed the trend/power curve. That's how all conquerors work. You know the general landscape, but not the exact path, so you can accurately say "well I knew microcomputers were going to be huge, I just didn't expect it was going to be through DOS." That sounds a lot like "I wasn't planning on being a huge success, it just happened."
Otherwise you sound like a megalomaniac blowhard.
Musk seems to be the only one who has stated his intention to "change the world" but dodged any real criticism other thank jokes about him being a supervillain.
Steve wanted to build best computer. Bill wanted a PC in every household.
Maybe we're thinking about this differently but both of those would fall into the supergroup of events that "changed the world." How then could they not have that intent?
I un-subscribed.
[0] https://angel.co/newsletters/startups-are-here-to-save-the-w...
Xerox was the corporation behind fast printing. Sony behind most of portable music and video recording...
The Internet is the main counterexample. The otger counterexamples almost always used the effects of scale created by the previous giants. (Apple, Microsoft, Google or Facebook - using both reduced price internet, computer hardware and hole after dotcom boom.)
>“Asana’s mission is to help humanity thrive by enabling all teams to work together effortlessly.“
Underline:
>help humanity thrive
Let that sink in. This post has long been coming. Someone had to write this.
On an unrelated note, If you start your own company, please, PLEASE don't write BS for your mission statements, vision, etc. They're supposed to mean something. It will otherwise contribute to a lot of negative things, including trust issues and poor employee morale. Write something you truly believe in.
I'm not arguing that it's good or bad, but I don't quite see how it "contribute[s] to a lot of negative things, including trust issues and poor employee morale"
I think the argument you're making is that the Asana statement was written cynically and they don't really believe that. I think it's impossible to truly know, but I know a lot of founders who really do believe in their mission statements.
Contrast this with someone like Sony.
> "At Sony, our mission is to be a company that inspires and fulfills your curiosity. ground-breaking new excitement and entertainment in ways that only Sony can. Everything we do, is to move you emotionally."
The products they release resonate with their mission statements.
Have you used Asana? I recommend you give it a try, once you try it, you'll realize how exaggerated their mission statement is. This thread is a good read: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16271279
> "Asana is the easiest way for teams to track their work—and get results."
Whoever wrote that is great with words and has a grip on reality.
However then they have as their real mission:
> “Asana’s mission is to help humanity thrive by enabling all teams to work together effortlessly.“
which is just laughable, and that's considering that I'm the type of person who's likely to give people benefit of the doubt on things like this.