Every CEO is a salesman. Anyone who believes every word of a salesman is a fool. I'd not paint it as Trump-style, bona fide lying. It's just inflating promises, or being overly optimistic. Par for the course.
I don't think this would help our social fabric, which the article says Google is "tearing apart." Why do we need to break Google's monopoly on search again? Which they don't actually have.
Well look at what they mean whenever people complain about tearing the social fabric it usually means "other people aren't conforming to how I think they should, this is new and I don't like it so therefore it is all its fault and we are doomes if we don't get rid of it".
Given that it has previous culprit of that exact same charge was gay marriage it is clearly a meaningless "family values" style euphemism to try to make their complaints seem valid.
Of course they are! There are user researchers, people looking for spam and abuse, people tagging data, among other things who are absolutely looking at your: private messages, search queries, profiles viewed, Alexa conversations, Tinder messages, bookmarks, call history, purchase history, geolocation history... and on and on. I guess there are a lot of news stories left to write on this topic.
I think what gets me is the juxtaposition of the brand name and this functionality. Superhuman sounds like it should be all about making the email sender more productive. And not about tracking time-stamped geotags of my actions as the receiver.
By embracing the fact that startups are purely about money I keep things simple and true. When the motivation is all about numbers there’s less potential for confusion and wasted time.
I'm willing to bet if you gave 100 people the opportunity to build a startup, or work at a nice friendly large company, with the guarantee that they'd make the same amount of money over the next 10 years (no more, no less) -- that many (~50%?) would choose the startup.
That's not the bargain you get with a startup, though. The bargain is that you bear the risk of the startup failing in the market and you getting zero, in exchange for all of the upside if it succeeds. With that bargain, it's rational to focus entirely on money, because you get all of it and you get none of it if there is none.
The bargain you're describing is a side project:
> And if you have no real business and just want to work on your own stuff and maybe make money later then that’s just a side project.
And you actually can take that bargain, if you have suitable qualifications - it's like being employed by a research lab of a big company, or an internal tech incubator, or an EIR position, or just being friendly enough with a VC that they give you seed capital to work on whatever you want. And yes, > 50% of big company employees, if offered that deal, would probably take it.
The reason why they're not taking it is because there're barriers to entry put up in front of it - a Ph.D in a hot field for research lab positions, previous corporate success for internal incubators, previous startup success for EIRs, and personal connections or pedigree for no-strings-attached seed funding. And the reason why you have those barriers to entry is that this deal is not economically rational for the person fronting the money unless there's a decent chance that the person they're sponsoring will come up with something valuable during the time period in question.
I think you're missing the point, of course the bargain doesn't reflect reality -- but many people choosing the startup over the other job given this bargain thought experiment where all else is equal implies that there is motivation other than money, i.e., freedom of direction, ownership, etc.
Really depends on the life stage of who you are asking. As someone with a wife and two young children, being able to have consistent, reasonable, hours and good work/life separation makes working for a large company very appealing.
The ownership, creativity, unknown. The ups, downs, fears, joys, camaraderie. The charge-the-hill attitude. The late nights and early mornings. The chaos, the clarity. Evolution, growing up. The first team member who you didn't directly hire. Walking up a flight of stairs and seeing the activity below -- all of which wouldn't be there without you and/or those close to you.
These things aren't just about money. Life is short. Spend it doing things that have meaning to you.
Given how small chances there are for startups to actually make you rich, if your only motivation in life is to become rich you really should choose another career path.
Also this apparently comes as a surprise to you but, yes, there are other motivations for starting a company. Some of them are listed in the comment you responded to.
Really, you can't think of anything? No offense, to me that's a kinda bleak outlook. Money is sorta necessary, but to me it'd always just be the fuel that makes or keeps the interesting things happening.
If you care about anything, then sometimes there is some change you'd like to see in the world because of what it is that you care about.
Often it'll be both. Why not change the world in some way that you care about as well as make lots of money in the process?
I think the Google guys really wanted to empower people with information, and that Travis Kalanick really thought taxis were quite shit. A startup is probably more likely to succeed when the founders are at least interested in the subject matter.
Startups do not have a monopoly on changing the world. The biggest change in our world in the last ten years was the proliferation of smart phones, and none of that came from a startup.
"Changing the world" is the siren song startups sing to lure in starry eyed graduates out of college and hire them for cheap rates on the chance that maybe their stock options might someday be worth something, because even if you don't become a millionaire, at least you can still feel proud that you are a "world changer". Except that's a lie too, because startups that fail (which is most) don't change much of anything.
Real change doesn't happen with the heroic actions of a small startup sailing against the wind. A startup has to grow huge to first have the ability to make meaningful change in the world, and by the time it's huge it's just another drab corporation that people love to hate, and bears no resemblance to a startup. The change comes from the small actions of its employees toiling everyday toward a common goal. Not really something that makes for a riveting read.
And at the end of that dream day when you have changed the world, you might find the world will want to change whatever you did anyway.
The point is, if you care about making change so much, change lives on a small scale. Even with this post I may be changing someone's life, maybe some young engineer working at a startup will be sitting there with a thousand yard stare coming to a realization they are in a trap, and take steps toward a better life and career.
But please, let's not continue to disguise ambitions of making a ton of money with noble stories of how you want to change the world and making everything a better place. This is the same as an idea guy who pitches out "amazing" ideas for new apps and then wants someone else to do all the work. The true motivation behind what they say is clear, and their charade is insulting to those who simply want people to be honest in their interactions. When your goal is to make a ton of money it's easy to start piling in a bunch of extra goals that sound nice, but the tune will quickly change if you tell someone they can accomplish all their extra goals but end up dirt poor.
Well ... whatever your startup endeavours to do. If your startup is building widgets, then you want to make the best widgets you can and make a mark in the industry AND get rich.
Would be interested in seeing some kind of legislation where content moderation jobs that deal with XYZ categories of content must be compensate at least some % downtime/recovery. So e.g. in an 8 hour day you can only spend 4 hours a day doing moderation, and 4 hours of 'paid mental preparation' for doing the moderation work.
Good question. I think it will get plenty of hate, but most countries don't have the level of Facebook hate that the USA/Europe has, and lots of people don't particularly care about the crusade against Facebook. It would probably get a lot less hate if they weren't involved, but here we are? NYTimes takedown coming in hot!
