shaswat123/etnlp · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 412k
it's inevitable that people will exploit the difference to the point
where much of what you're measuring is artifacts of the fakeness.I confess I did it myself in college. I found that in a lot of
classes there might only be 20 or 30 ideas that were the right shape
to make good exam questions. The way I studied for exams in these
classes was not (except incidentally) to master the material taught
in the class, but to make a list of potential exam questions and
work out the answers in advance. When I walked into the final, the
main thing I'd be feeling was curiosity about which of my questions
would turn up on the exam. It was like a game.It's not surprising that after being trained for their whole lives
to play such games, young founders' first impulse on starting a
startup is to try to figure out the tricks for winning at this new
game. Since fundraising appears to be the measure of success for
startups (another classic noob mistake), they always want to know what the
tricks are for convincing investors. We tell them the best way to
convince investors is to make a startup
that's actually doing well, meaning growing fast, and then simply
tell investors so. Then they want to know what the tricks are for
growing fast. And we have to tell them the best way to do that is
simply to make something people want.So many of the conversations YC partners have with young founders
begin with the founder asking "How do we..." and the partner replying
"Just..."Why do the founders always make things so complicated? The reason,
I realized, is that they're looking for the trick.So this is the third counterintuitive thing to remember about
startups: starting a startup is where gaming the system stops
working. Gaming the system may continue to work if you go to work
for a big company. Depending on how broken the company is, you can
succeed by sucking up to the right people, giving the impression
of productivity, and so on.
[2]
But that doesn't work with startups.
There is no boss to trick, only users, and all users care about is
whether your product does what they want. Startups are as impersonal
as physics. You have to make something people want, and you prosper
only to the extent you do.The dangerous thing is, faking does work to some degree on investors.
If you're super good at sounding like you know what you're talking
about, you can fool investors for at least one and perhaps even two
rounds of funding. But it's not in your interest to. The company
is ultimately doomed. All you're doing is wasting your own time
riding it down.So stop looking for the trick. There are tricks in startups, as
there are in any domain, but they are an order of magnitude less
important than solving the real problem. A founder who knows nothing
about fundraising but has made something users love will have an
easier time raising money than one who knows every trick in the
book but has a flat usage graph. And more importantly, the founder
who has made something users love is the one who will go on to
succeed after raising the money.Though in a sense it's bad news in that you're deprived of one of
your most powerful weapons, I think it's exciting that gaming the
system stops working when you start a startup. It's exciting that
there even exist parts of the world where you win by doing good
work. Imagine how depressing the world would be if it were all
like school and big companies, where you either have to spend a lot
of time on bullshit things or lose to people who do.
[3]
I would
have been delighted if I'd realized in college that there were parts
of the real world where gaming the system mattered less than others,
and a few where it hardly mattered at all. But there are, and this
variation is one of the most important things to consider when
you're thinking about your future. How do you win in each type of
work, and what would you like to win by doing?
[4]
All-ConsumingThat brings us to our fourth counterintuitive point: startups are
all-consuming. If you start a startup, it will take over your life
to a degree you cannot imagine. And if your startup succeeds, it
will take over your life for a long time: for several years at the
very least, maybe for a decade, maybe for the rest of your working
life. So there is a real opportunity cost here.Larry Page may seem to have an enviable life, but there are aspects
of it that are unenviable. Basically at 25 he started running as
fast as he could and it must seem to him that he hasn't stopped to
catch his breath since. Every day new shit happens in the Google
empire that only the CEO can deal with, and he, as CEO, has to deal
with it. If he goes on vacation for even a week, a whole week's
backlog of shit accumulates. And he has to bear this uncomplainingly,
partly because as the company's daddy he can never show fear or
weakness, and partly because billionaires get less than zero sympathy
if they talk about having difficult lives. Which has the strange
side effect that the difficulty of being a successful startup founder
is concealed from almost everyone except those who've done it.Y Combinator has now funded several companies that can be called
big successes, and in every single case the founders say the same
thing. It never gets any easier. The nature of the problems change.
You're worrying about construction delays at your London office
instead of the broken air conditioner in your studio apartment.
But the total volume of worry never decreases; if anything it
increases.Starting a successful startup is similar to having kids in that
it's like a button you push that changes your life irrevocably.
And while it's truly wonderful having kids, there are a lot of
things that are easier to do before you have them than after. Many
of which will make you a better parent when you do have kids. And
since you can delay pushing the button for a while, most people in
rich countries do.Yet when it comes to startups, a lot of people seem to think they're
supposed to start them while they're still in college. Are you
crazy? And what are the universities thinking? They go out of
their way to ensure their students are well supplied with contraceptives,
and yet they're setting up entrepreneurship programs and startup
incubators left and right.To be fair, the universities have their hand forced here. A lot
of incoming students are interested in startups. Universities are,
at least de facto, expected to prepare them for their careers. So
students who want to start startups hope universities can teach
them about startups. And whether universities can do this or not,
there's some pressure to claim they can, lest they lose applicants
to other universities that do.Can universities teach students about startups? Yes and no. They

it's inevitable that people will exploit the difference to the point

where much of what you're measuring is artifacts of the fakeness.I confess I did it myself in college. I found that in a lot of

classes there might only be 20 or 30 ideas that were the right shape

to make good exam questions. The way I studied for exams in these

classes was not (except incidentally) to master the material taught

in the class, but to make a list of potential exam questions and

work out the answers in advance. When I walked into the final, the

main thing I'd be feeling was curiosity about which of my questions

would turn up on the exam. It was like a game.It's not surprising that after being trained for their whole lives

to play such games, young founders' first impulse on starting a

startup is to try to figure out the tricks for winning at this new

game. Since fundraising appears to be the measure of success for

startups (another classic noob mistake), they always want to know what the

tricks are for convincing investors. We tell them the best way to

convince investors is to make a startup

that's actually doing well, meaning growing fast, and then simply

tell investors so. Then they want to know what the tricks are for

growing fast. And we have to tell them the best way to do that is

simply to make something people want.So many of the conversations YC partners have with young founders

begin with the founder asking "How do we..." and the partner replying

"Just..."Why do the founders always make things so complicated? The reason,

I realized, is that they're looking for the trick.So this is the third counterintuitive thing to remember about

startups: starting a startup is where gaming the system stops

working. Gaming the system may continue to work if you go to work

for a big company. Depending on how broken the company is, you can

succeed by sucking up to the right people, giving the impression

of productivity, and so on.

[2]

But that doesn't work with startups.

There is no boss to trick, only users, and all users care about is

whether your product does what they want. Startups are as impersonal

as physics. You have to make something people want, and you prosper

only to the extent you do.The dangerous thing is, faking does work to some degree on investors.

If you're super good at sounding like you know what you're talking

about, you can fool investors for at least one and perhaps even two

rounds of funding. But it's not in your interest to. The company

is ultimately doomed. All you're doing is wasting your own time

riding it down.So stop looking for the trick. There are tricks in startups, as

there are in any domain, but they are an order of magnitude less

important than solving the real problem. A founder who knows nothing

about fundraising but has made something users love will have an

easier time raising money than one who knows every trick in the

book but has a flat usage graph. And more importantly, the founder

who has made something users love is the one who will go on to

succeed after raising the money.Though in a sense it's bad news in that you're deprived of one of

your most powerful weapons, I think it's exciting that gaming the

system stops working when you start a startup. It's exciting that

there even exist parts of the world where you win by doing good

work. Imagine how depressing the world would be if it were all

like school and big companies, where you either have to spend a lot

of time on bullshit things or lose to people who do.

[3]

I would

have been delighted if I'd realized in college that there were parts

of the real world where gaming the system mattered less than others,

and a few where it hardly mattered at all. But there are, and this

variation is one of the most important things to consider when

you're thinking about your future. How do you win in each type of

work, and what would you like to win by doing?

[4]

All-ConsumingThat brings us to our fourth counterintuitive point: startups are

all-consuming. If you start a startup, it will take over your life

to a degree you cannot imagine. And if your startup succeeds, it

will take over your life for a long time: for several years at the

very least, maybe for a decade, maybe for the rest of your working

life. So there is a real opportunity cost here.Larry Page may seem to have an enviable life, but there are aspects

of it that are unenviable. Basically at 25 he started running as

fast as he could and it must seem to him that he hasn't stopped to

catch his breath since. Every day new shit happens in the Google

empire that only the CEO can deal with, and he, as CEO, has to deal

with it. If he goes on vacation for even a week, a whole week's

backlog of shit accumulates. And he has to bear this uncomplainingly,

partly because as the company's daddy he can never show fear or

weakness, and partly because billionaires get less than zero sympathy

if they talk about having difficult lives. Which has the strange

side effect that the difficulty of being a successful startup founder

is concealed from almost everyone except those who've done it.Y Combinator has now funded several companies that can be called

big successes, and in every single case the founders say the same

thing. It never gets any easier. The nature of the problems change.

You're worrying about construction delays at your London office

instead of the broken air conditioner in your studio apartment.

But the total volume of worry never decreases; if anything it

increases.Starting a successful startup is similar to having kids in that

it's like a button you push that changes your life irrevocably.

And while it's truly wonderful having kids, there are a lot of

things that are easier to do before you have them than after. Many

of which will make you a better parent when you do have kids. And

since you can delay pushing the button for a while, most people in

rich countries do.Yet when it comes to startups, a lot of people seem to think they're

supposed to start them while they're still in college. Are you

crazy? And what are the universities thinking? They go out of

their way to ensure their students are well supplied with contraceptives,

and yet they're setting up entrepreneurship programs and startup

incubators left and right.To be fair, the universities have their hand forced here. A lot

of incoming students are interested in startups. Universities are,

at least de facto, expected to prepare them for their careers. So

students who want to start startups hope universities can teach

them about startups. And whether universities can do this or not,

there's some pressure to claim they can, lest they lose applicants

to other universities that do.Can universities teach students about startups? Yes and no. They