Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

73% Positive

Analyzed from 3636 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#money#more#things#tech#don#where#founders#real#startup#jim

Discussion (96 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

egonschiele•about 1 hour ago
Real bummer of a story.

> He approached me because he was really into startups and wanted to become a tech entrepreneur, and make the big bucks

It's a shame that so much of tech culture has become about money. Money was always a part of it, but living in the Bay in 2010, there was more of a focus on building things. But once people started getting rich, especially off bitcoin, it brought in a whole host of people whose primary passion seemed to be money. We moved out in 2018. Still bums me out, SF was my favorite city, and I hoped to live there for a long time, but the values weren't my values anymore.

Aurornis•about 1 hour ago
> Money was always a part of it, but living in the Bay in 2010, there was more of a focus on building things. But once people started getting rich, especially off bitcoin, it brought in a whole host of people whose primary passion seemed to be money.

This is funny to read because I remember hearing someone complain about the exact same thing in the Bay Area, but their dates were shifted by about 10 years before yours.

I think it's kind of like Burning Man, where everyone's favorite experience was their early days when they were young. As you get older, you complain it's gone downhill and the new generation is going for all the wrong reasons.

nilkn•about 1 hour ago
I find people's view is based on how much they're personally "winning" financially. If they're making money, then daily life seems more about building. If they're not making money, then the oppressive cost of living makes money seem all-important in the culture (which, in fact, it is and has been for generations).

SF and the Bay Area are constantly shuffling through and recombining ideas. What generated money relatively easily in 2010 would've started becoming low value in 2018, rapidly approaching an asymptote of relative uselessness today. 2018 is about the point where you needed to be pivoting to AI if you really wanted to remain part of the city's "upper class", where money feels like it doesn't matter because it's abundant and automatic. 2010 was the era of mobile apps.

bencarmin•18 minutes ago
I think it is interesting how now, a lot of the selling to individuals regarding AI is the ability to do what was popular in 2010 (building apps, websites, games) is easy now due to AI. I know so many people who have made workout apps, CRMs, planners, etc. that are baffled by why their work isn't picking up traction (keep in mind, we aren't in SV).

Makes me wonder how long we have before, "create your own ChatGPT" becomes the next big thing and people wonder why their "AI Labs" aren't making as much as the big boys.

losteric•2 minutes ago
> This is funny to read because I remember hearing someone complain about the exact same thing in the Bay Area, but their dates were shifted by about 10 years before yours.

Another perspective is just that SF's culture has been declining for decades. As someone born in SF, I'd agree.

t_serpico•13 minutes ago
I think the focus on building things is the wrong framing - that seems to be still there. But this AI wave is centered around automation, which has a different flavor to the previous cycles (1970-2010), which very much felt much more positive sum and less hyper capitalistic.
brandall10•2 minutes ago
And for me - not in the bay area but in my CS program at UCSD - 10 years before that. Going into the junior year in '96 there was a clear inflection point, we suddenly had a flood of finance bro types all over the CS lab as the dot com bubble was quickly inflating.
themanmaran•20 minutes ago
I've just been reading The Making of Prince of Persia (highly recommend [1]) and it's amazing how the journal feels exactly like today's startup scene. But everything is dated 1989.

[1] https://press.stripe.com/the-making-of-prince-of-persia

rightbyte•20 minutes ago
Another theory is that things has gotten worse as more and more petite bourgeois prospects for class travel lose faith in the invisible hand and turn to pure grift.

And when it comes to culture as festivals they are very much victims of getting hallowed out and sucked dry.

paulddraper•31 minutes ago
Yeah, I was reading along but the date 2010 surprised me.

In reality, you could probably put any date in there and it would work.

mc32•8 minutes ago
I think there was a time when people who generally went for MBAs started going into CS and other majors angling to get into a tech company. There was also a coincidental proliferation of tech “bootcamps.” I think that’s when things tilted away from technology as a way to improve things to a vehicle to greater riches.
andy99•4 minutes ago
SF, from my perspective (I work there part time but don’t live there) is interesting because it feel like one of the few cities one would still move to to “make it” in an industry, at least in tech.

There seems to be a human desire to start a new and better life somewhere, and career-wise SF is almost the only place that seems compelling to try. There are lots of good companies in other cities, but I don’t know would you hear someone say they were going to move to Seattle because of the tech scene and try and get involved in some startups? SF still feel American dream-y.

Taniwha•17 minutes ago
I think the real watershed wan't bitcoin, it was the internet bubble, before that the rule of thumb was you couldn't go public without 5 consecutive quarters of profit - you really had to build something real - suddenly you could do it on hype alone and the focus turned to that
camillomiller•about 1 hour ago
It’s always been a travesty, it was just harder to see through it because back then morals hadn’t been completely dismantled by the last 15 years of whatever the US has become
s0rce•18 minutes ago
As long as there is money people will come just for that. That's where we got tech bros, like finance bros, instead of just a bunch of nerds making cool stuff.
carlosjobim•44 minutes ago
Tech startup is one of the few remaining ways still allowed for plebs to build wealth unless they're born into it, because digital stuff isn't influenced by real estate feudalism.
toomuchtodo•39 minutes ago
Also why generative AI scares people who want to build wealth with tech, as it removes a vehicle to create moats to build wealth and concentrates existing wealth that can avoid having to hire labor. At least the illusion of meritocracy and skill (versus connection and luck) leading to wealth is evaporating.
lmeyerov•13 minutes ago
Fwiw, without naming names, I helped someone at a hackathon make their first app on something he was passionate about, later found out he had been recently homeless living on an abandoned boat, and now years later, afaict he turned that into a $10m/yr business with ~millions of users

Persistence > Intelligence , and being able to code isn't some sort of superiority thing, it's just one skill of many

Edit: being able to take risks, and doing so, does lead to higher variance outcomes, so that is something I have also come to appreciate and look for in people. It may look reckless, and attracts weirder people almost by definition, but that is what startups are ultimately about, betting you can do better than the regular path!

gyanchawdhary•4 minutes ago
true :)
FinnLobsien•about 1 hour ago
I think much of this comes down to wanting to be a type of person vs. wanting to do the actual thing.

It’s easy to be consumed by “I’m the wealthy San Francisco founder guy” and doing everything that lifestyle requires, including things that may not be good for you.

Aurornis•about 1 hour ago
That's a really good way of putting it.

I've been to some weird SF events where you immediately recognize that most people there are in their fake it till you make it stage. Then you realize that many of them aren't interested in the part where you have to do a lot of hard work, they just want to be impressive and charming to a broad network so they can insert themselves into the best opportunities that come up.

Every startup collects a couple of these hires during their growth phase. Some times it can be really hard to separate the charm, charisma, and credentials from ability to get things done. The smart founders will push these people back out, much like this Jim guy got fired from the startup he managed to get into at the right place at the right time. It doesn't happen immediately, though.

Carrok•about 1 hour ago
Bit of an aside but I found it somewhat amusing that one example the author uses of Jim’s financial recklessness was getting into home brewing.

Home brewing is one of the cheaper hobbies available (though like all hobbies you can spend as much as you want). The only real requirements are a bucket and a pot.

yesimahuman•about 1 hour ago
Same with a $10k tree slicer, when the actually expensive alternatives that really get people in trouble are day trading, real estate, car collecting, divorce, and starting new businesses that fail.
storywatch•about 1 hour ago
Now general aviation on the other hand..
nunez•15 minutes ago
A boat that flies lol
nunez•16 minutes ago
It's cheap until you think "we should start a brewery!" Then it becomes wildly, absurdly expensive.

The hobby itself can get costly though. So much equipment to buy. And space.

codemog•about 1 hour ago
Same with the cat and the dog.
mohamedkoubaa•about 1 hour ago
Home brewing is one of those hobbies that are only expensive if you poast hard enough
schrodinger•about 1 hour ago
How much more likely does becoming a home brewer make you to develop alcoholism, especially for someone who sounds a bit predisposed like Jim?
jitl•about 1 hour ago
it’s infinitely easier to become an alcoholic by buying alcohol at a grocery store. brewing is pretty much the least direct most delayed gratification way to get drunk. i guess it can be pretty cheap if you optimize for that but it sounds like jim made enough money and high flying friends it’s unlikely to be major factor.
fragmede•about 1 hour ago
Though, after you've home brewed the beer, you've now got potentially gallons of beer in a giant pot that you have to bottle yourself. Or you could be lazy and just drink it yourself. True, you could just go down to the store and grab a 30-rack of mass produced beer if you wanted to be an alcoholic, but having a vat of beer in your kitchen that isn't going to drink itself and is gonna go bad if you don't, is a different kind of peer pressure.
apsurd•about 1 hour ago
You must not drink or like beer. Brewing something until it ferments into alcohol is the most basic thing ever. There is the very simple problem of taste that is the issue.
janpeuker•13 minutes ago
Reminds me of this 2015 article "Beware The Pretty People" http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/28/beware-the-pretty-people/

> The establishment scions pouring into tech take on the trappings of subversion, while remaining fundamentally conformist. Meanwhile, rampant success inevitably causes the former tech counterculture to morph into posturing “Prada revolutionaries,”

Unfortunately the article ends on praising crypto and surveillance, so this has been going on for a while

goatlover•4 minutes ago
Even better who you know, then you can become wealthy and get away with almost anything, as Epstein realized when he said there are out lots of hard working people who never become rich.
daishi55•about 1 hour ago
I don’t trust anyone who has the general, abstract goal of being a “founder”. If there’s no great idea to go with it, it just seems like vanity. And sure it does work out really well anyway sometimes, but it’s just something I can’t get behind aesthetically.
dilyevsky•about 1 hour ago
I met a number of really successful founders who came in just wanting to build a business and found a niche later (sometimes waaay later). I suspect majority of founders with “great ideas” discovered them after the company was started and the great idea they started with wasn’t actually that good
Johanx64•32 minutes ago
> I don’t trust anyone who has the general, abstract goal of being a “founder”.

The goal isn't abstract - read it as - goal of "not being a wage-slave" and have a shot at being more. It's an ambition type of thing.

iririririr•about 1 hour ago
that's 99.9 of them. the ones with the strong feelings towards ideas most of the time is already post-idea-du-jour narrative
mattbillenstein•about 1 hour ago
Founder culture definitely has fraternity vibes - people with no other discernable talent other than being above average looking and having connections with other similar people end up in positions they have no real idea how to do.

In other words, there are a lot of people "playing startup" in the valley - some of the VC money flows too easily and there is always going to be an ecosystem of people to try to put it to work.

rustfreeforme•8 minutes ago
Wish I could lay hands on some of that money they are pissing away out in California.
Joel_Mckay•4 minutes ago
Spend 90% of your time on the slide-deck fiscal forecast charts, and 10% on product development.

Sadly, most people will think this advice is a joke. =3

Joel_Mckay•6 minutes ago
Most people start businesses for tax reasons, and to mitigate financial risks.

People dumping discounted equity to hyper-scale on debt is not a business, but just another IPO over-valuation scheme. =3

RivieraKid•about 1 hour ago
It's really hard for me to understand that people who have the chance to achieve basic financial independence (say $1M net worth) don't take that chance and make sure to stay financially independent forever.

If you do that, you're almost guaranteed to stay in the top 2% globally for the rest of your life. You've made it in life, at least financially.

The approach of not taking advantage of the lucky and privileged situation exposes you to a huge risk that your NW will go down to zero and you never get a second chance.

mordechai9000•35 minutes ago
I think $1M net worth in the US these days is a nice little nest egg, but not anywhere near financial independence. Unless your needs are simple, you can relocate somewhere to live very cheaply, and you don't have any dependents.
fouc•26 minutes ago
$1M invested in a reasonably diversified portfolio gets you about $3,000/mo lifetime at ~3.5% safe withdrawal rate. That might be quite restrictive in the more expensive cities.
nunez•14 minutes ago
Some people can't get enough of yachts and other really expensive things
polishdude20•about 1 hour ago
I don't think these people NW ever goes down to zero.
make3•about 1 hour ago
they often go into the minuses I'm sure, spending culture in the US is bananas
saucymew•20 minutes ago
Silicon Valley bats for 0-to-1 startups. If you swap "Revenue" for "Risk," that is culturally the same. People who don't have a "1" full-risk-on mode by default self-select themselves out of this game.

A toy model game is poker. If opponents know you'll never call an all-in/go all-in, they will always outplay you on the river.

And so, let the market pump funny numbers, and matriculate the lucky survivors.

eastbound•13 minutes ago
> don't take that chance and make sure to stay financially independent forever.

What means do you see? Buy some S&P500 ETF and live off the interest rate? That seams easy but without investing in AI, you’re at risk of AI making the existing economy irrelevant, it’s the same as having all investments in local craftsmanship in 1700 and the steam machine happens, except much faster.

And move to [insert home country]? (What if I want to keep my friends)

hahahaa•about 1 hour ago
Interesting. I am sure there are Jims outside of startup world too. There will be finance Jims and entertainment Jims.

Is having a couple of pets and a ridiculous table lifestyle creep. Maybe. I think of lifestyle creep more in terms of you are not saving any money at all.

I think that comment is more telling of what is expected of founders and engineers. At least from authors point of view.

No life allowed. Definitely don't reproduce. You work, and work so you can work more.

Aurornis•about 1 hour ago
> Jim had participated in drug-fueled “founder parties”, group orgies and all other crazy experiences in San Francisco. This naturally led to the breakup with his fiancée and a nervous breakdown.

The Bay Area is a weird place. There are countless companies staffed by smart people doing amazing things. There are also countless people cosplaying as smart people and founders who are going through all of the motions, but producing little value.

In my experience (which is as limited as any other one person's experience) the environments at the companies doing the amazing things are on the boring side. Nobody wants to hear about those because it's uninteresting. So instead all of the public stories are about crazy parties, quick wins, huge exits, and the glamorous stuff.

People go there seeking it out. Some get lucky with some early wins, like Jim from this story. But when the time comes to do work, they flounder and get pushed out, also like Jim. It's a big place, though, and there's always some connection willing to hook you up with another referral if you press hard enough. That's the step where the performative, partying people start getting grouped up with other performative, partying people, and it snowballs from there.

Meanwhile the real companies are off quietly doing boring work and getting things done, pushing the Jims out if they accidentally get hired or acquired into the fold. It's a weird place.

vrosas•44 minutes ago
SF is such a weird vibe in general. I've watched a lot of founders/tech bros go to burning man for the first time, completely miss the point of it but adopt an air of superiority for attending. I watched a founder weave in his experience on peyote into a company all hands. They also, for reasons I simply cannot fathom, go out and buy a green Range Rover. And as someone who's been in the ENM space for a long time, SF is the LAST city I'd want to experience it in...
Aurornis•41 minutes ago
> I've watched a lot of founders/tech bros go to burning man for the first time, completely miss the point of it but adopt an air of superiority for attending.

I can't say I see a lot of green Range Rovers in other cities, but I assure you this one is universal across places and industries.

I have friends who go to Burning Man and don't post anything on their social media or bring it up in conversation because they don't want to be one of those people. Others go once and it becomes 50% of their personality for the next year.

xmprt•about 1 hour ago
There's more truth to the "Forbes 30 Under 30 to prison pipeline" than people give it credit.
make3•about 1 hour ago
this is just an empirical fact
Advertisement
andsoitis•6 minutes ago
That story has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
yesimahuman•about 1 hour ago
I mostly stayed clear of the SV world while building and exiting my startup, but people like this came and went through my network constantly. They were always easy to pick out based on how much they glorified certain SV personalities and were desperate for their approval.
asveikau•18 minutes ago
Probably not right to diagnose an allegory, but does it sound to anyone else like Jim might have bipolar disorder?
mikeaskew4•39 minutes ago
“Who wants to make some real, positive impact on humanity,” says no one ever, anymore…
singingtoday•about 1 hour ago
I've met a few people like that, through what appears to be pure determination, they force success to give up what it has. Very impressive.
codemog•about 1 hour ago
Complete bollocks people like PG say before anointing grifters with undeserved power. Has happened all throughout history.
guywithahat•about 1 hour ago
This gets to a point my dad always made when I was neck deep in startups; so many of them felt unserious. People go to the most expensive west coast city, raise money, and then move to the next most expensive east coast city and open a second office. A lot of founders are clearly inexperienced, and to defend their inexperience, hire under experienced teams. It all sort of gets back to the root of the issue, which is that the hardest part is never the engineering, it’s networking and finding product market fit. Finding people who actually get up and do meaningful things is hard, and so Jim’s sneak in under the guise of being an outsider who understands a market and can make things happen.
moralestapia•about 1 hour ago
>and to defend their inexperience, hire under experienced teams

It's also a bit of "I like you because you're like me" thing plus some "it's useful to me that you're like that".

I've seen plenty of startups where the CEO/CTO has been trained to under one specific stereotype (common ones these days are: the asian twink, the athlete, the nootropics guy, etc.), and then lots of their friends/hires happen to be of the same or adjacent/compatible stereotypes.

bicx•about 1 hour ago
You really have to believe your own narrative to do well as a startup founder, even when evidence is initially scant. This likely also has a tendency to slide into self-delusion.
jacobgold•about 1 hour ago
There are different kinds of founders in Silicon Valley now. Some are more like founders from the previous generation, like Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. Others are more like Elizabeth Holmes and Adam Neumann.

There are lots of earnest, sincere, and interesting founders. There are also lots who probably would've been happier on Wall Street.

blobbers•about 2 hours ago
woah woah... a bartender becomes the head of engineering at a high flying start up? This isn't the .com. Did the bartender also go to MIT?

Drug fueled founder parties? Orgies? I've clearly been doing silicon valley wrong. Or right, depending on your perspective... but not this? I've seen board game fueled parties where maybe one or two people do drugs, but it remains very nerdy? And no sex parties. Mostly sausage parties?

... so yeah. Do people really know Jims? Because I just read posts about them.

Animats•about 1 hour ago
I've met the type. But usually, they're on the marketing side, not the ones who develop something. I knew one who blew through 8 figures and ended up an alcoholic, then dead.

The startup market rewards first to market and first to scale. This creates a game of "chicken", where the competitors spend like crazy trying to achieve a near monopoly. That's why some of the fake-it-til-you-make-it crowd gets ahead. But most of them crash. The historical success rate for VC-funded startups is only about 1 in 10.

stevenwoo•41 minutes ago
Re: sausage party - Based on the salary of these guys, if they wanted they could easily afford nightly visits at something like the now closed strip club, the Mitchell Brothers theater in San Francisco. I went for a bachelor party in early 2000s, and every dancer who got close enough to have a conversation with you propositioned you with sex acts for a price in a private room. I worked at a startup in Houston in the early 1990s and the founder went to strip clubs it seemed every time he was in town, he took the whole company one time (it was less than 20 of us) and that strip club seemed to work on a similar if less brazen vibe. The other startups I’ve worked for did not have strip club trips. :)
mosura•42 minutes ago
The whole SV “let’s go to burning man” crowd has always had a very active sex aspect to it. This is one of the things neo puritan pichai era Google struggles to deal with about its past.
com2kid•about 1 hour ago
Pretty sure my choosing to work for companies ran by stable sane people is responsible for the complete lack of drug fueled orgy invites on my calendar.

Actually the one drugs + stripper party I was invited to was so damn sad and pathetic I left after a few minutes. A bunch of geeks who got rich, using money to do an impersonation of the crazy lifestyle reality TV taught them they were supposed to be having.

I left the party and went back to playing board games in another wing of the hotel.

sscaryterry•about 1 hour ago
What type of drugs? Asking for a friend.
fancyswimtime•about 1 hour ago
C&K
bladeacidic•38 minutes ago
For sex parties, GHB is where it's at. It's like molly but sexier.
smuhakg•about 1 hour ago
> And no sex parties. Mostly sausage parties?

Clearly you weren't cool enough to get into the drug-fuelled OpenAI gay sex orgies.

JumpCrisscross•about 1 hour ago
> drug-fuelled OpenAI gay sex orgies

What?! Source?

smuhakg•about 1 hour ago
Source: https://futurism.com/researcher-openai-sex-drug-parties

More prison gay than anything else. I'd go down on a man for a million dollar OpenAI offer even though I'm into women. I don't think commenters here realize how desperate people can become for money.

senorcrab•about 1 hour ago
Ultimately this comes down VCs who fund people like this. Can we really believe the established funds look for "independent thinkers" anymore?
Advertisement
tikhonj•about 1 hour ago
> A few months post-acquisition, he got fired for an allegedly silly reason, but my intuition is that he was coasting hard and couldn’t focus at all because of home office and lifestyle creep.

This seems like a pretty dubious conclusion to make from the outside. There are a lot of reasons somebody would get fired after an acquisition. Hell, even if he was coasting, an acquisition followed by a rapid change in environment and culture can cause somebody to lose motivation for a wide range of reasons. Blaming this on "lifetstyle creep" is rather premature and, frankly, pretty judgemental or moralistic.

This is downstream of a pretty frustrating belief I've seen repeatedly in the tech industry: that whether a person is "motivated" or "hard working" is some kind of inherent quasi-moral characteristic of the person, rather than something substantially affected by environment. But hey, it's much easier to blame individuals and lean on the perf review process than it is to change organizational culture or leadership!

camillomiller•about 1 hour ago
Airbnb’s CEO, for example, is a Jim who got lucky
make3•about 1 hour ago
Snapchat's famously also is one
arionhardison•15 minutes ago
His family is also insanely rich and helped him w/ the IP contracts.

John W. Spiegel: A prominent business litigation and securities lawyer who graduated from Yale University and worked as a partner at the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson.

JumpCrisscross•about 1 hour ago
“presumably under the influence of some strong chemicals”

This is a bigger problem in Silicon Valley right now than anyone seems ready to acknowledge.

cmuguythrow•about 1 hour ago
We will look back at the easy access to amphetamines - especially for children - in a similar light to the opioid epidemic. To be fair, I think they are less harmful than many opiates, but they are still serious drugs and usage has ~doubled in the last 10 years [1]. Anecdotally, it feels so common/casual for people - adults and schoolchildren - to be taking adderall, vyvanse, concerta, etc. Over 20 million subscriptions in the US [1] means thats something like 5-10% of the adult population.

1. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-communications/fda-upd...

bladeacidic•27 minutes ago
Will we? Opiates leading to a homeless population not being productive, just looking to get high and be high all day and not do anything other than be a zombie, hits different compared to stimulants that makes people work harder and clean things.
hahahaa•about 1 hour ago
I see the "we work 12 hrs a day 6 days a week" as a euphemism for "we take amphetamines".
khazhoux•about 1 hour ago
Whenever you hear someone say they work 80- (or 100!) hour weeks, you should understand what they mean is they had a few crunch weeks once.
andy99•about 1 hour ago
Or the only thing they do in life is come to the office and then mix life with work so effectively it’s a combination of hanging out with friends, eating free food, and working, but it all goes into the work bucket when claims are made about how much they work.

Nothing wrong with that per se, I basically did that in grad school. It’s completely different than actually grinding 100 hours a week though. Also tough to be a part of if you have a life or family outside work.

nunez•11 minutes ago
ibb folks definitely work this much every week. big law too. medicine, sometimes.
achandra03•about 1 hour ago
A lot of people also equate "face time in the office" to "real work getting done". Especially prevalent in finance circles.
outside1234•about 1 hour ago
Elon
zer00eyz•28 minutes ago
> Silicon Valley right now

Go back to early 2000's post dot com bubble.

The whole of the bay ran on Adderall and Ambien + what ever else one could get their hands on. It was so pervasive that even a decade later you could find Adderall references in Bay Area hip hop.

Almost 30 years on, and this still has not really changed.

sherburt3•about 1 hour ago
Drugs are bad, mmkay