His dad was a computer scientist and larry read a lot of AGI sci fi as a kid, so it's not really that hard to extrapolate 1980s technology to 2040s outcomes.
> It's obvious in retrospect that this was a great idea for a startup. It wasn't obvious at the time.
It may not have been obvious, but the decision was damn well near as engineered with data as it could be. They also were _insanely_ well connected through their and their parents academic career. Both Sergey and Larry had obtained their PhD prior to starting the company. I can also remember reading that they obtained significant amounts of funding through connections Larry's dad had into the industry.
You can ignore the rest of my comment, what follows is just my take.
Their success story is imo one of the most blatant examples on how privilege really does give you a boost in life. I am not arguing that anyone could have done it, but I do wonder how the world would look like if we were all kids of academics with a successful career, with a relatively safe, secure and stable childhood home and a family background that really incentivizes learning and academic success over succumbing to the pressure of, you know, having an income at some point.
Don't forget that Larry's older brother Carl went through the whole VC process with egroups and gained extreme experience with how to maximize his position in negotiation.
But yes, I agree completely that kids of academics raised in an environment that incentivzes learning is a reliable way to transform the future.
The rest of my statement is true.
I recently read something that played out a thought experiment about "imagine the world could only hold 10,000 people". It may have been a comment somewhere on HN honestly. The idea was that if the world could only hold 10,000 people, there never would have been enough division of basic duties for any one individual to dive so deep that they could invent semi-conductors (insert any modern tech really). I mean we likely wouldn't even have mastered locomotion by now if that was the case.
Lets assume we're "all kids of academics with a successful career, with a relatively safe, secure and stable childhood home and a family background that really incentivizes learning and academic success over succumbing to the pressure of, you know, having an income at some point." Most of us will still just be working on the basic societal problems of producing food and taking out the trash.
With all due respect, the world isn't a thought experiment and the dynamics of a system with 10.000 people is not comparable to that of 7 billion.
My argument was pointing at the fact that it may be pointless to compare your own plans to success against someone elses success story, when they had completely different starting variables in life and people who refuse to at least consider this are either trapped in the Silicon Valley hustle culture or are, sorry, completely ignorant, bordering on idiotic.
With that same logic ala "Not everyone can be X" I can justify almost all of human suffering in the world. I refuse to believe that you follow an ideology like this if you're on this site, because if you did, you were already rich by means of some criminal enterprise exploiting humans far beyond what tech startups are capable of.
This isn't some appeal to idk, introducing communism and making everyone equal but this argument is as dumb as making a healthy runner compete in the paralympics.
(Still not obvious if you ask me.)