The post is patronizing as hell, it’s no wonder people respond to it negatively. Patting people on the head and saying “you moron, it’s just two numbers” isn’t a good way to make an argument.
In this case, I feel there’s no shared foundation. Half of the commenters here don’t seem to understand what money is or how it works. There's no soil in which to plant an argument, because there's no understanding of what a billion dollars represents. There’s no genuine desire to understand the counterparty either.
Very disturbing.
So even if the debate reveals that no, there wasn’t a viable reconciliation, the debate was still worthwhile.
I read the first half of PG’s essay and was left wondering if I should read the whole thing, just in case there was something in half 2 that redeemed half 1.
Most startups fail! Ignoring that reality, and only focusing on the slope of money growth is like saying that if you hit the right drafts you will survive falling out of a high rise window.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. The payoff for doing startups is the (incredibly small chance that you succeed) * (the absurd payout if you do).
Even VC funds fail.
If PG brought up survivorship bias at any point, it would have significantly armored his case.
I've observed this in a lot of internet arguments, but have not been able to put it into words until you said this. It feels like everyone is more concerned about 'winning' the argument more than anything else.