Hacker News Reader

Comment by hyggetrold | Hacker News Reader

> The naysayers are nearly always right. We just only remember the times they were wrong.

Wait what?

I'll let parent elaborate more on the intent, but the way I interpreted it was : Saying that a startup will fail (i.e. being a naysayer) and being right about that is the most likely outcome due to the current "success" distribution (most businesses/startups fail).

Also the most memorable ones are when people were dismissive but ultimately wrong about the viability of the business (like the "dropbox" comment).

I think there's a deeper implication that the naysayers _about the subject of the hype_ are usually right, rather than simply about anyone trying to exploit the hype. Metaverse was going to be the next big thing. Naysayers (correctly) laughed. Nobody talks about metaverse now.

The vast majority of startups fail. Most attempts at business will fail. It's just the nature of things.

But I think a not uncommon pattern with "too big to fail" startups is that they can change their definition of success or failure in order to claim victory. Or at least, in order for Sam to do so.

They might not reach the stated goal of AGI or even general profitability, but if Sam and some key investors manage to come out ahead at the end of their maneuvering, then I'm sure they'll claim victory (and that they changed the world and all that pomp).

Funny how their definition of changing the world amounts to: Fuck you, got mine.

> Funny how their definition of changing the world amounts to: Fuck you, got mine.

It's sad, but at this point I pretty much assume anyone out of SV who claims they're trying to change the world are either liars, incompetents, or both. That whole culture has just been on a tear of goodwill-burning.

Nearly every venture of any sort fails. The only times we remember the naysayers are on the rare occasions where they were wrong and the venture succeeded.

Ah okay, that makes sense.

Because we mostly remember the things that are still around. Everyone knows about Charles Darwin but nobody knows about Erasmus Darwin, kind of thing.

If it wasn't this way, it would mean new things are more likely to succeed than fail.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com