Hacker News Reader

Relevant Hark! A Vagrant http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=206

The sentiment seems very popular in the start-up scene :)

May i say how wonderful it is too see a relevant Hark! rather than a relevant XKCD for a change. Class, tonight's homework is to find a relevant Dinosaur Comics. For extra credit, a relevant Achewood.

http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=05312002

(I don't do regular credit.)

You have excellent taste in comics.

Perhaps you're overanalyzing this post? For one, he doesn't appear to be postulating some grandiose startup theory. I read the post as "here is some bad stuff that happened to me and here's some advice if it happens to you."

Furthermore, have you considered that a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz has also seen plenty of what causes companies to fail? Maybe he just didn't outline it here?

Not to mention his last paragraph: "Sometimes it really is over, and I believe that one of the clearest signs is when you are completely out of cash. But right up until that point, when the music is still playing, when your team is still driving hard, you have a shot – and usually a decent one."

A better article on survivorship bias (which also references the same war story) is: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2013/05/23/survivorship-bias/

This is a great paper, but I really wonder how much difference it made. The conclusion says

    The greatest probability of being destroyed is .534, and occurs
    when a plane is hit by a 20-mm cannon shell in the engine area.
    The next most vulnerable event is a hit by a 7.9-mm machine gun
    bullet on the cockpit.

I think most people would suggest that these are the parts worth protecting the most.

Another thing, I'm not sure that the method is unobvious. This is not the fault of the author but of the fairly breathless retellings that sound like an episode of 'Numb3rs'

> "[A guy in charge]..."

That should read, "One of the most influential mathematical statisticians in history..."

He also invented the "Wald test".

Agreed that this should get quite a bit more elaboration to put it in perspective.

and it's actually a really great insight. I can only wish that I would come to a similar conclusion faced with a related situation.

Yeah, that's actually why I think it's important to point out who made the insight. Every time I've heard the anecdote, it's been presented as some sort of clever observation that we should all be expected to produce.

But, really, it's a clever observation that was made by a historically great statistician. And the anecdote leaves out the fact that he had probably been thinking about this problem before --- he was working as part of the war effort. So it was probably harder than it looks.

> So extra plating could only go where the planes were being shot the most."...

Apocalypse Now:

> Why are you sitting on your helmet?

"than these "we almost died" posts because they prove more instructional"

Agree.

Also noting that hotmail in particular (1/2 of the n=2) was a free service.

There wasn't much that the customers who lost their mail could do legally (most likely) because they weren't paying for the service. So I am guessing it wouldn't be something that you could hire a lawyer to pursue [1] or even band together for a class action.

[1] Which is a really important concept actually. If you are providing a service to a customer and charge either nothing, or a very cheap price, and have a good contract, the chance of someone hiring a lawyer to pursue an action is pretty small.

I think they were more concerned with losing users (and future users) and being unable to raise more funding than with actually being sued.

On a slightly related note, i used to ask at interviews, "What was the worst mistake you've ever made?".

I found out later when stopped by the (UK) police once, that their "Have you ever been in trouble with the police before?" is a similar one. After i answered it pretty dismissively, he said "It's amazing what some people will tell you".

Upvote to the top replier for this anecdote, which i'll keep for special occasions: > "[A guy in charge] said the military didn’t need to reinforce the spots that had bullet holes. They needed to reinforce the spots that didn’t have bullet holes."