smokestack412

I wish we'd (as a whole) stop using quantitative terms for things that aren't quantifiable. We can all do that, it's easy and it makes us sound smart.

I've seen $100mm+ companies fail because Google decided not to like them anymore. I'm talking about external forces that are far more powerful than execution. And there are lots of 'em (an infinity, even!).

Execution is an HN startup meme. Correctly: most businesses execute very unluckily. You're hopelessly down the rabbit hole if you think skill has the most to do with it, it's total nonsense. VCs don't invest in skill, they invest in crapshoots. Skill is a prerequisite, luck is what makes people rich. Don't pretend otherwise or you'll make it more painful when you fail (99% of the time).

Your premise has something to do with your success preventing you from being able to give advice to people? Something again about your success, and how you've been successful? And how your success facilitated your success?

"Maybe what you're really seeing is Confirmation Bias and, again, everything you have to say is worthless."

"Which is annoying."

"Because it misses the point."

I read the premise of the article to be that people who aren't successful a) aren't taking enough risks, and b) aren't working hard enough. This is wrong in at least two ways and denigrates people who a) can't, and b) are. I'm restating my original point but please correct me if I'm wrong. I find that kind of reasoning to be utterly disgusting, ignorant and self-serving. That was my issue with the article.

I've been successful way beyond my control and I understand that. This guy doesn't and blames people who weren't for making him feel bad.

This guy just learned the term "confirmation bias."

The ability to take risk is a privilege that many don't have and he doesn't get that. A lot of really unsuccessful people work incredibly hard and never get lucky. He's demonstrated in one word-vomit of a blog post how ignorant (and unappreciative) he is of his own luck. Good job bro.