Hacker News Reader

Comment by yawnxyz | Hacker News Reader

as someone who's run marathons... building a startup is NOT a marathon.

Marathons have a distinct finish line. When you're at mile 20 and your legs are falling off and you take tylenol or whatever they give you to make the pain go away... or when ppl on the sidelines say "almost there!!" and you send them a rude look because those last six miles are the WORST... at least you know you'll cross the finish line at some point and pass out on the grass.

No, startups are like running marathons but in Stephen King's the Long Walk. There's no finish line — you just have to walk farther than those around you, or you die trying.

View on HN

Perhaps building a start-up is more like finishing the Hardrock 100[1]. Unless you get extremely lucky, it takes years of work just to qualify to get into the lottery. It then takes a lot of persistence and failures in the lottery to get to the starting line. If you're not prepared at the starting line you probably won't finish and even if you are prepared there's room for a lot of luck (both good and bad) to affect your chances.

However, unlike finishing Hardrock, it's certainly possible to successfully launch a start-up without exercising. However, the few times I tried it that way I crashed and burned. I strongly suspect exercise might have pulled me through although to be fair there are tons of other things I did wrong that had I done right might have led to greater success.

[1]https://www.hardrock100.com/

Why are startups like this and not 40h/week affairs? I mean if you do 80h/week that is only 2x. Does that 2x make all the difference? If startups are getting millions of dollars in seed funding these days do you need founders burning themselves out? For bootstrappers can it just be done more slowly over more runway rather than long hours?

Not to mention the second batch of 40 hours will likely be nowhere as productive as the first 40 hours.

Depending on what article you read, anything past hours 4-6 a day are essentially a wash.

Knowing that it makes sense to front-load tour day and spend the rest doing less intensive tasks: answering emails, updating documentation, etc.

It's not 80h/week vs 40h/week, it's how many weeks can you endure it.

It's how far you go, not how fast you go.

Ostensibly an African proverb is “If you want to run fast, run alone. If you want to run far, run together.” I'll add "If you want to run really far, call walking running."

The Cocodona 250[1] starts in less than two weeks, but with the Crooks Fire it's looking like C250 will be 200 < C < 250.

[1]https://cocodona.com/

I'm not in startups, but I think it's because of the fierce competition. If you don't do 80h/week, someone else will.

They aren't all like this but to stick with the 40h vs. 80h framing, the 2x can make a difference.

1) Compounding. Assuming sustained productivity (this is usually unreasonable), it's not just you outputting 2x, it's a bunch of people cranking out 2x and your next up efforts compound on top of those initial boosted efforts.

2) Timing. Some startups are in positions where launching ~months before a competitor could tip the scales.

3) Hiring. It's very difficult to grow headcount at the exactly correct rate alongside business growth.

4) Fundraising. Growth rate is the top metric for raising additional funding.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com