Comment by AndrewKemendo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AndrewKemendo | Hacker News Reader

It's still unclear to me what DHH's goals are for these pieces.

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?

I feel like you didn't read anything in the article.

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".

I suppose you could assume a portion of that argument from the paragraph on companies that have "changed the world" not setting out to. However a lesson like "don't fake it till you make it" wasn't the takeaway. I interpret the last paragraph:

"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.

Actually it does. If he said "We want to change the world" that would be much more like it. What he says there is "be the change you want to see".

He isn't saying you shouldn't try to make an impact, just to acknowledge that what your doing is only going to really effect a subset of people. DHH himself has made a huge impact, by virtue of RoR, but this only changed the world for some thousands of developers. Maybe you can make the argument that this "trickles down" to the rest of the world, but all in all, your best chance at making impact comes from vastly improving the lives of what turns out to be a very small part of humanity rather than aiming for it all.

acknowledge that what your doing is only going to really effect a subset of people.

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.

Watch out for the founding story narrative here, even Zuckerberg himself would tell you, he didn't initially set out to build Facebook, the megacorp. He just put one foot in front of the other. The fact that he got serious traction and it led to ever greater potential is what inspired the grand vision.

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 think their main goal is to serve as a counterbalance to the prevailing voices in the industry and to show people that there are various definitions of success - not just the definition that TechCrunch and the VC circles elevate.

I welcome their voice. I think it’s a nice counterbalance. We need both kinds of voices in the room.

I think that's fair, however the tone seems to be more aggressive than simply saying "hey there are other options." It's more "there is no place for this ecosystem and you're broken if you play in it."

For example just from this post alone:

These people have "delusions of grandeur" and "congitive dissonance" are making an "existential cry for help."

“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”

Their "main goal" is self-promotion, same as the material they put down. Which they need, the way dung beetles need dung.

I don't think they have much to gain by advocating for this kind of stuff so publicly. They're already incredibly well known for Basecamp, Ruby on Rails, and various other things. That's why I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that they've demonstrated they deserve (in my view).

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.

It's just his usual troll. They've been blowing that note for ten years and will never change. Sing the third, just sing the third: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVTzT3FmxhI.

Amusing how he talks about "the Twitter mob" and "their" pitchforks as if "they" were someone else, though.

None of the Founders, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry, or Mark decide to change the world from the first place. They changed the world as a consequence of their success, not their Goal.

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.

None of the Founders, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry, or Mark decide to change the world from the first place.

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.

They wanted huge success, sure. But changing the world wasn't their intent. It was mere consequences.

Steve wanted to build best computer. Bill wanted a PC in every household.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com