Hacker News Reader

Comment by makeramen | Hacker News Reader

I'm not the only one noticing the connection to startups right?

Though not as morbid, I would imagine "stepping over dead bodies" and "leaving teammates behind" is a rather common experience in startups as well, though potentially frowned upon (but even then, it would depend on the situation).

EDIT: I think I need to clarify, I'm thinking more that startup COMPANIES are like everest climbers, trying to reach profitability/success. And then we can similarly say "[The internet] is littered with dead, exposed bodies [of startups]"

View on HN

There's a difference between even screwing over your best friend ("The Social Network"-style) and leaving them to die alone in a frozen desert of hell, where their mummified remains will stand for years to come as a grim reminder that someone left them behind.

Sure, there's some very distant analogy, but it's really a different kettle of fish.

I feel like there's a sort of mutual understanding of the risk among all parties going into these situations. Yes one is much more grim than others, but in concept at least.

Especially when "screwing over" means settling a lawsuit with gazillions of dollars.

I agree, I don't see much of a similarity between startups and risking death--literally.

It seems tantalizing and there is lots of vague overlap in attitudes and risks but that is something startups share with anything requiring lots of hard work, passion and commitment.

People like to glamorize their business endeavors. Some guys at computers building a web-app just isn't that exciting to people without a lot of fictionalization or likening it to something more exciting.

> where their mummified remains will stand for years to come as a grim reminder that someone left them behind.

where their mummified remains will stand for years to come as a grim reminder of their awesomeness.

Fixed that for you.

It's been my experience that the community is exactly the opposite. Founders and early employees are generally eager to help others, even when they probably don't have the time to spare. I've always tried to do the same and it has paid off easily 10x in terms of the amount of advice and help my startup has received.

Well so do mountaineers - when there not at the edge of life due to exhaustion in the "death zone".

I'm in same millieu with some of the greatest climbers of the world. And generally they are some of the best (read moral, ethical, sincere) people I ever met.

But when an accident happens somewhere on K2 - sometimes there needs to be a tradeoff - either some die or all die. There have been daring (but foolish) successfull rescue attempts. These guys tend to make peace with the world before they start climbing the damn thing.

Messner himself had to leave his own brother die to stay alive.

I agree wholeheartedly. All the startup founders I've met have all been more than willing to help others out.

But at the same time, when it comes to business decisions, personal relationships often take a back seat (i.e. Zuckerberg), and sometimes it's simply good business (i.e. Eric Schmidt leaving Apple board probably due to Android vs. iPhone, WePay icing Paypal, companies suing each other over IP/copyright... etc).

I'm not at all criticizing the people startup community, but just noticing the similarities among us that drive us towards a similar goal of success with that of Everest climbers trying to summit. To outsiders of either community, certain decisions may seem unintuitive, or even outright morally wrong, but sometimes perspective is everything.

Your clarification helped me to understand your comment. However, I don't think what you describe is unique to startups in any way. Any industry or business can be described with those terms. In fact, it's probably more apt of a description of public companies, which frequently state their purpose it to maximize shareholder value.

With startups, in fact, failure or "leaving someone behind" is probably less traumatic, because failure is accepted and often valued as part of improving. While the company may be left on the wayside, the people will most likely be back again with a new company soon after.

Traumatic isn't really the right word, but you get what I mean.

Responding to your edit:

Ok, granted, but there the difference is even more important: companies are not people. They are legal persons, perhaps, but they do not deserve the human empathy from us which humans deserve.

"... Though not as morbid, I would imagine "stepping over dead bodies" and "leaving teammates behind" is a rather common experience in startups as well, though potentially frowned upon (but even then, it would depend on the situation). ..."

You're kidding right?

Working in a Startup, in a cushy office with access to water, food & external help is not in the same league as roughing it. Having said that the lessons you learn in the field can be directly applied to Startups. The constraints on resources, the stresses, the lack of knowledge and uncertainty. That's where the comparisons end. If you can't hack it - you can go home. In the field, you never leave anyone behind . Never!

> In the field, you never leave anyone behind . Never!

This mentality is encouraged because otherwise it would be harder to recruit soldiers, but it's bad strategy. There are times when the success of a mission may depend on leaving someone behind.

EDIT> Just as the "never leave anyone behind" meme is an artificial construct, you might be able to train a force with a culture of "I will never force my mates to have to rescue me". Warrior culture is a construct.

Special forces operating in extreme conditions have no qualms about leaving someone, if necessary.

Maybe. Foreign legion [0], Royal Marines [1] say otherwise. It's more about "unity & team" rather than "I".

[0] http://french-foreign-legion.com/french_foreign_legion_code....

[1] http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/royalmarines/history-and-ethos/...

"... This mentality is encouraged because otherwise it would be harder to recruit soldiers, but it's bad strategy. There are times when the success of a mission may depend on leaving someone behind. ..."

I'm a civvie.

This idea here can be equally applied to many civilian situations. This year it was at the top of Australia's tallest mountain (not very tall, but cold) where a hapless walker got out of his comfort zone & didn't prepare very well ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/4797709801/ and another who got injured coming down ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/4797709801

Last year it was looking out ~ http://seldomlogical.com/2009/04/21/getting-stuff-done-with-... for my old man ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/sets/72157616765213435... & a mate who's family copped it ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/sets/72157621928042355... in one of the biggest fires recorded where I live ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/collections/7215762118... or the bloke I found sitting in his car, post fires ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/3405148567/in/set-7215...

I observed the type of attitude you portray while Casevac'n ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_evacuation a youngster in Highschool. I remember watching groups of "potential" helpers look, then walk out of the train while I made sure he didn't bleed out - then moved him 5km in 8m to medical help. I didn't do it by myself. I enlisted a team of ppl to help. Obviously they understood the need after a bit of coaxing?

I've read the psychology behind why people are so callous or reluctant: at group level "bystander effect" at personal level where low agreeability, low responsibility and low morality levels that don't compel action. But I don't understand it. Maybe that's why USMC have the idea of a "blood chit" as a motivator? ~ http://www.usmcpress.com/heritage/blood_chit.htm

eh, I think that if firing someone is like killing him, you are doing it wrong. I mean, yeah, in the course of your business, sometimes you have to fire people for the good of the company; but I don't see how that's anything like leaving them behind to die; and really, I think part of the skillset employers need to be good employers is the ability to separate from someone without hating them or inspiring hate.

I mean, don't get me wrong, to be an employer, you need to be able and willing to fire people. I'm just saying, there's no reason to do so with malice, and there's quite a lot of reason to help them get another job somewhere else, usually. I mean, you hired the guy to begin with, so you must think he's got some redeeming qualities someone else might like, even if you don't need those qualities at the moment.

I up-voted you because I'm honestly curious how many people would agree with your statement. (no sarcasm implied)

Your thought makes me think of some tidbit from an interview on a show. It was an HGTV episode about extreme homes -- some guy with some ridiculously large house that cost gajillions to build. (IIRC) He had been a military pilot who flew more than 100 missions, all of which involved someone shooting at him. He went into real estate after he left the military on the theory that high risk, high finance real estate couldn't be more nerve wracking than that. Obviously, he made scads of money.

I suspect that successfully facing down death can do a lot to prepare you for making it in business. I have no real reason to believe the relationship particularly runs the other direction though.

Not that you were suggesting any such thing.

"the theory that high risk, high finance real estate couldn't be more nerve wracking than that. Obviously, he made scads of money"

I wonder how he's doing now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com