shaswat123/etnlp · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 412k
power programmers care about may not be formally definable, but
one way to explain it would be to say that it refers to features
you could only get in the less powerful language by writing an
interpreter for the more powerful language in it. If language A
has an operator for removing spaces from strings and language B
doesn't, that probably doesn't make A more powerful, because you
can probably write a subroutine to do it in B. But if A supports,
say, recursion, and B doesn't, that's not likely to be something
you can fix by writing library functions.[4] Note to nerds: or possibly a lattice, narrowing toward the top;
it's not the shape that matters here but the idea that there is at
least a partial order.[5] It is a bit misleading to treat macros as a separate feature.
In practice their usefulness is greatly enhanced by other Lisp
features like lexical closures and rest parameters.[6] As a result, comparisons of programming languages either take
the form of religious wars or undergraduate textbooks so determinedly
neutral that they're really works of anthropology. People who
value their peace, or want tenure, avoid the topic. But the question
is only half a religious one; there is something there worth
studying, especially if you want to design new languages.


Want to start a startup? Get funded by
Y Combinator.




October 2014(This essay is derived from a guest lecture in Sam Altman's startup class at
Stanford. It's intended for college students, but much of it is
applicable to potential founders at other ages.)One of the advantages of having kids is that when you have to give
advice, you can ask yourself "what would I tell my own kids?" My
kids are little, but I can imagine what I'd tell them about startups
if they were in college, and that's what I'm going to tell you.Startups are very counterintuitive. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's
just because knowledge about them hasn't permeated our culture yet.
But whatever the reason, starting a startup is a task where you
can't always trust your instincts.It's like skiing in that way. When you first try skiing and you
want to slow down, your instinct is to lean back. But if you lean
back on skis you fly down the hill out of control. So part of
learning to ski is learning to suppress that impulse. Eventually
you get new habits, but at first it takes a conscious effort. At
first there's a list of things you're trying to remember as you
start down the hill.Startups are as unnatural as skiing, so there's a similar list for
startups. Here I'm going to give you the first part of it — the things
to remember if you want to prepare yourself to start a startup.
CounterintuitiveThe first item on it is the fact I already mentioned: that startups
are so weird that if you trust your instincts, you'll make a lot
of mistakes. If you know nothing more than this, you may at least
pause before making them.When I was running Y Combinator I used to joke that our function
was to tell founders things they would ignore. It's really true.
Batch after batch, the YC partners warn founders about mistakes
they're about to make, and the founders ignore them, and then come
back a year later and say "I wish we'd listened."Why do the founders ignore the partners' advice? Well, that's the
thing about counterintuitive ideas: they contradict your intuitions.
They seem wrong. So of course your first impulse is to disregard
them. And in fact my joking description is not merely the curse
of Y Combinator but part of its raison d'etre. If founders' instincts
already gave them the right answers, they wouldn't need us. You
only need other people to give you advice that surprises you. That's
why there are a lot of ski instructors and not many running
instructors.
[1]You can, however, trust your instincts about people. And in fact
one of the most common mistakes young founders make is not to
do that enough. They get involved with people who seem impressive,
but about whom they feel some misgivings personally. Later when
things blow up they say "I knew there was something off about him,
but I ignored it because he seemed so impressive."If you're thinking about getting involved with someone — as a
cofounder, an employee, an investor, or an acquirer — and you
have misgivings about them, trust your gut. If someone seems
slippery, or bogus, or a jerk, don't ignore it.This is one case where it pays to be self-indulgent. Work with
people you genuinely like, and you've known long enough to be sure.
ExpertiseThe second counterintuitive point is that it's not that important
to know a lot about startups. The way to succeed in a startup is
not to be an expert on startups, but to be an expert on your users
and the problem you're solving for them.
Mark Zuckerberg didn't succeed because he was an expert on startups.
He succeeded despite being a complete noob at startups, because he
understood his users really well.If you don't know anything about, say, how to raise an angel round,
don't feel bad on that account. That sort of thing you can learn
when you need to, and forget after you've done it.In fact, I worry it's not merely unnecessary to learn in great
detail about the mechanics of startups, but possibly somewhat
dangerous. If I met an undergrad who knew all about convertible
notes and employee agreements and (God forbid) class FF stock, I
wouldn't think "here is someone who is way ahead of their peers."
It would set off alarms. Because another of the characteristic
mistakes of young founders is to go through the motions of starting
a startup. They make up some plausible-sounding idea, raise money
at a good valuation, rent a cool office, hire a bunch of people.
From the outside that seems like what startups do. But the next
step after rent a cool office and hire a bunch of people is: gradually
realize how completely fucked they are, because while imitating all
the outward forms of a startup they have neglected the one thing
that's actually essential: making something people want.
GameWe saw this happen so often that we made up a name for it: playing
house. Eventually I realized why it was happening. The reason
young founders go through the motions of starting a startup is
because that's what they've been trained to do for their whole lives
up to that point. Think about what you have to do to get into
college, for example. Extracurricular activities, check. Even in
college classes most of the work is as artificial as running laps.I'm not attacking the educational system for being this way. There
will always be a certain amount of fakeness in the work you do when
you're being taught something, and if you measure their performance

power programmers care about may not be formally definable, but

one way to explain it would be to say that it refers to features

you could only get in the less powerful language by writing an

interpreter for the more powerful language in it. If language A

has an operator for removing spaces from strings and language B

doesn't, that probably doesn't make A more powerful, because you

can probably write a subroutine to do it in B. But if A supports,

say, recursion, and B doesn't, that's not likely to be something

you can fix by writing library functions.[4] Note to nerds: or possibly a lattice, narrowing toward the top;

it's not the shape that matters here but the idea that there is at

least a partial order.[5] It is a bit misleading to treat macros as a separate feature.

In practice their usefulness is greatly enhanced by other Lisp

features like lexical closures and rest parameters.[6] As a result, comparisons of programming languages either take

the form of religious wars or undergraduate textbooks so determinedly

neutral that they're really works of anthropology. People who

value their peace, or want tenure, avoid the topic. But the question

is only half a religious one; there is something there worth

studying, especially if you want to design new languages.

Want to start a startup? Get funded by

Y Combinator.

October 2014(This essay is derived from a guest lecture in Sam Altman's startup class at

Stanford. It's intended for college students, but much of it is

applicable to potential founders at other ages.)One of the advantages of having kids is that when you have to give

advice, you can ask yourself "what would I tell my own kids?" My

kids are little, but I can imagine what I'd tell them about startups

if they were in college, and that's what I'm going to tell you.Startups are very counterintuitive. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's

just because knowledge about them hasn't permeated our culture yet.

But whatever the reason, starting a startup is a task where you

can't always trust your instincts.It's like skiing in that way. When you first try skiing and you

want to slow down, your instinct is to lean back. But if you lean

back on skis you fly down the hill out of control. So part of

learning to ski is learning to suppress that impulse. Eventually

you get new habits, but at first it takes a conscious effort. At

first there's a list of things you're trying to remember as you

start down the hill.Startups are as unnatural as skiing, so there's a similar list for

startups. Here I'm going to give you the first part of it — the things

to remember if you want to prepare yourself to start a startup.

CounterintuitiveThe first item on it is the fact I already mentioned: that startups

are so weird that if you trust your instincts, you'll make a lot

of mistakes. If you know nothing more than this, you may at least

pause before making them.When I was running Y Combinator I used to joke that our function

was to tell founders things they would ignore. It's really true.

Batch after batch, the YC partners warn founders about mistakes

they're about to make, and the founders ignore them, and then come

back a year later and say "I wish we'd listened."Why do the founders ignore the partners' advice? Well, that's the

thing about counterintuitive ideas: they contradict your intuitions.

They seem wrong. So of course your first impulse is to disregard

them. And in fact my joking description is not merely the curse

of Y Combinator but part of its raison d'etre. If founders' instincts

already gave them the right answers, they wouldn't need us. You

only need other people to give you advice that surprises you. That's

why there are a lot of ski instructors and not many running

instructors.

[1]You can, however, trust your instincts about people. And in fact

one of the most common mistakes young founders make is not to

do that enough. They get involved with people who seem impressive,

but about whom they feel some misgivings personally. Later when

things blow up they say "I knew there was something off about him,

but I ignored it because he seemed so impressive."If you're thinking about getting involved with someone — as a

cofounder, an employee, an investor, or an acquirer — and you

have misgivings about them, trust your gut. If someone seems

slippery, or bogus, or a jerk, don't ignore it.This is one case where it pays to be self-indulgent. Work with

people you genuinely like, and you've known long enough to be sure.

ExpertiseThe second counterintuitive point is that it's not that important

to know a lot about startups. The way to succeed in a startup is

not to be an expert on startups, but to be an expert on your users

and the problem you're solving for them.

Mark Zuckerberg didn't succeed because he was an expert on startups.

He succeeded despite being a complete noob at startups, because he

understood his users really well.If you don't know anything about, say, how to raise an angel round,

don't feel bad on that account. That sort of thing you can learn

when you need to, and forget after you've done it.In fact, I worry it's not merely unnecessary to learn in great

detail about the mechanics of startups, but possibly somewhat

dangerous. If I met an undergrad who knew all about convertible

notes and employee agreements and (God forbid) class FF stock, I

wouldn't think "here is someone who is way ahead of their peers."

It would set off alarms. Because another of the characteristic

mistakes of young founders is to go through the motions of starting

a startup. They make up some plausible-sounding idea, raise money

at a good valuation, rent a cool office, hire a bunch of people.

From the outside that seems like what startups do. But the next

step after rent a cool office and hire a bunch of people is: gradually

realize how completely fucked they are, because while imitating all

the outward forms of a startup they have neglected the one thing

that's actually essential: making something people want.

GameWe saw this happen so often that we made up a name for it: playing

house. Eventually I realized why it was happening. The reason

young founders go through the motions of starting a startup is

because that's what they've been trained to do for their whole lives

up to that point. Think about what you have to do to get into

college, for example. Extracurricular activities, check. Even in

college classes most of the work is as artificial as running laps.I'm not attacking the educational system for being this way. There

will always be a certain amount of fakeness in the work you do when

you're being taught something, and if you measure their performance