Hacker News Reader

Comment by ignoramous | Hacker News Reader

Even folks working on the problem sometimes think it is non-viable. I question the thing I'm working on, every single day. That's just how it is, even after you commit.

If one can deliver real value to end-users, and the growth takes a phenomenal turn, then different kind of non-viable thoughts would emerge, I'm sure.

View on HN

But the thing is, I'm actually pretty certain there's close to zero value in the solid 3/4 of these ideas. I concede that maybe I just don't see it, but statistically my odds of being right are much better than theirs.

You have much better odds of being right but they have much better odds of being successful.

That is a pretty unwarranted passive-aggressive remark, especially considering you know nothing about the person you'r e replying to and all he said were objective truths.

I'm pretty sure he means that by being a critic on the sideline, you have a better chance of being right, but you have much worse odds of doing something great. Or said differently, if you never try, you never fail, but you also never succeed. I don't think that's an inappropriate response to someone who's saying "3/4 of these ideas suck".

And no, what the person he's responding to is saying aren't objective truths.

Isn't that the whole VC model? 1 big success pays for 99 failures? I think it's more about what could happen if one blows up, than about how big the chance is that it will.

In my mind, I like the idea of funding the companies that are building the type of future I want to live in. That way the future I like has a better chance of happening.

Alternatively, a strategy could fund the ones that are building a terrible, but profitable future, and using the money you make to live somewhere else.

It almost seems like a prisoner's dilemma sort of situation. If you don't fund the baddies, and someone else does, then you'll be poor in a terrible future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com