Lunch with Sean Parker: on how he's coping with his new reputation
ft.com
ft.com
“You have got to be willing to be poor [as an entrepreneur],” he says. “There was a time when I was living out of a single suitcase. I had a rule that I wouldn’t stay on one person’s couch for more than two weeks because I didn’t want to become a bother.”
You've got to be willing to make sacrifices if you want to chase your dreams. A lot of people don't fully grasp that when they are coming in.
I'd offer a small edit on the premise and say that it isn't necessarily a willingness to be poor, but a willingness to go broke for your convictions that is important. Being poor/impoverished is a mindset, being broke is a temporary condition.
Somewhat tangentially related is the derivatives trader mindset which I have been reading about recently.
I'd say being poor/impoverished is a lack of money and a lack of friends or family with money (otherwise whose couch are you going to crash on?). (Only) being broke is just the former.
While I don't particularly care what they had for lunch, I felt that a lot of the conversations around what they were eating actually acted as rather a good insight into Parker's personality, so it wasn't a complete waste of text.
I found it really excruciating to read this article. I realize that there's a sort of formula for telling a story in news magazines (and I appreciate that it is an art form), but it drives me crazy when the story is more about the interview circumstances and less about ... anything, really.
... Then I realized something that I've found unique about Hacker News over the last several years: The submitter added the bit about "how he's coping with his new reputation". So I can neither fault FT for writing a story, nor can I fault the submitter for finding something about the story that I'd find interesting (to the contrary, I greatly appreciate the service).
Perhaps it's a new startup idea (or an old one done in many different ways [newser or even wikipedia]) ... the point in more than 200 characters and less than 4 paragraphs. Bonus if it includes customization to the reader's interests.
EDIT: phrasing.
So, I will click a post that says "Sean Parker's drooling habits" little because of what surrounds it - I will click it because have strong interest in finding out more about the noun, Sean Parker, without caring much at all about the totality of the title.
The more I know about the noun, the less I click on the titles (especially as they parse down to less interesting things), but the less I know, the more likely I am to click something as snore-inducing as "Lunch with Sean Parker".
It's a strange argument, though, to say that criticism must be less valid because they do this every week.
As a regular FT reader I actually enjoy them, including the descriptions about lunch.
To those who think that the character is an asshole, maybe you could answer if it's because the interpretation (demeanor or tone of voice) or the behavior.
They also left out some key details:
(1) Who paid? (2) How much did they tip?
Superfluous information is superfluous information.
That said, I still skimmed it for the bits and pieces I found interesting.
I can think of a few reasons for this, but the ethical one (avoiding the appearance of bribery etc.) seems by far the most obvious and important.
The FT is always supposed to pay; if somehow it didn't, you can expect the piece to say so.
The tip is grouped together with tax, not separately enumerated.