Hacker News Reader

Comment by ujkhsjkdhf234 | Hacker News Reader

You're being sarcastic but yes. If your intention is to take large sums of cash from investors and run off with a fat check then that is exactly what you should do.

View on HN

No I'm actually not being sarcastic. I know it might sound like that - it's hard to grok tone from text and I'm not particularly concerned. But I'm seriously considering it, I mean -- the goal of most startups is to solve (as PG puts it) "the money problem". So what am I doing building products, when I could be chasing these fads and possibly banking huge? I mean, that's smart, right?

I'm not being sarcastic at all. I feel I need to reiterate that because you got it wrong.

If enough of the market participants act stupid, or at least in predictably irrational ways, it may be profitable to capitalize on that behavior.

If you look at previous fads, all the way to be dotcom boom of late 1990s, this very approach seemed to work well for a number of buzzword-compliant pre-revenue "businesses", and their founders / owners. There was a crash after that, but the wisest were able to shield some of the money from it.

I think there’s that side to it, it may be correct to swoop in and profit, if you can outsmart them.

But then there’s another side where the fad has real value and the people investing have money because they’re smart and they recognize the value. And you have to be to make value in the fad.

But on some level, it’s also stupid to pursue the fad because it’s so hyper competitive and effect of luck is going to be magnified.

Some people might say there is more to life than making money but if you just want to hopefully get some naive investors to give you a large pile of money for your vaporware then go for it, it's where the money is.

Thanks, I appreciate your answer. Not sure it’s me tho. I guess another side I’d there’s probably real value in the fad, too. On some level, if you can figure that out.

All these people with money didn’t all get it by being stupid or fddy or vaporware so they’re responding to signals of value and their responses are reliable indicators in general.

There is more luck involved with getting rich than you might think. Mark Cuban once said if he had to start over he would have no problem becoming a millionaire but becoming a billionaire is completely dependent on luck.

Oh no I do think 'luck' is needed (See my sibling answer just above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43922354)

But on some level, it’s also stupid to pursue the fad because it’s so hyper competitive and effect of luck is going to be magnified.

- but 'luck's meaning is nuanced and depends on how you define it.

The problem with 'luck' is it's a rough model. A hypothesis based on incomplete information or insufficient analysis or non-comprehensive insight. Was it luck? Or was it something else? It's too easy to falsely ascribe significance to mere randomness (both mistaking randomness for coordination, and mistaking coordination for randomness), as I think many people consider luck. Almost as if "luck is a lottery". The wrong view of luck can confuse one's view of agency.

Also, because in the common conception 'luck' deals with the unknown as well as achievement, debates on luck conjure political and religious conflict that can be super contentious and feel intensely personal - essentially intolerable differences for many!

I don't see luck that way - but I agree that luck, in how I view it, is needed!

What is your view of what "luck" is, in detail?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com