News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball by bsder on Monday September 12, 2016 @06:55PM (#12484339)
> Start a small company. "Hustle" diligently for a while. Profit. Repeat. Now you have a large, successful company.

And, also, survivor bias. Lots of companies hustled and hustled and died.

Elon Musk is a really good example. At one point he couldn't meet cashflow--and then the government contract for SpaceX finally came in.

3 months of delay on that contract and Musk is a goat instead of a hero.

Re:Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball by taneq on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @12:37AM (#12485659)
This one drives me crazy. Sure, you have to be good and smart and you have to hustle, but you also have to be lucky, and luck is a bigger factor than anyone likes to admit. People who make it big forget the luck aspect and start believing that because it worked, they did everything right. They then go around dispensing questionable advice on the basis of 'it worked for them' while knowing full well that they're a massive outlier.

It's like when old successful people give "life-affirming" advice like "quit your job, follow your dreams, take risks, LIVE!" Which is great advice if you're already financially secure and you know that doing so didn't result (in your case) in you ending up as some peon working in a fast food joint. Never mind the other 99% of people who did the exact same thing and it didn't work out, because who listens to a failure?

Re:Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball by dasil003 on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @01:53AM (#12485891)
I agree with you, but there's a valid psychological reason that people don't admit to being lucky more often. It's because to maximize your chance of success you have to focus on what you can control. Sitting around and looking at others to try to dissect what was luck vs skill is a sort of armchair criticism where the practitioner is immune to failure by virtue of not even trying. Ultimately the question of luck is so subjective that it starts to become philosophical at some point. After all, so many small things happen via day-to-day serendipity that anything that actually happens can be considered incredibly lucky. On the other hand, one has a lot of agency when it comes to building a company, and the art of building a startup is about matching incredibly limited resources to the highest return activities, and ratcheting that over and over again through years of changing circumstances. All the luck in the world won't drop an Instagram-like success in your lap without just the right preparation leading up to that amazing moment.

In short, it's not that luck isn't super important, but if you are thinking about luck then you probably won't be ready to capitalize on it.

Re:Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball by Ma8ee on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @01:12AM (#12485769)
Of course luck is important. Elon Musk wouldn't be where he is today without at least some luck. On the other hand, a lot of people have had much more luck and opportunities than Musk and still didn't go nowhere. And the people with the drive and capacity of Musk who didn't get lucky are almost all still quite successful.
Re:Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball by bsandert on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @03:33AM (#12486223)
While luck isn't something you can completely control, it doesn't have to be entirely random either. I read this article a while back talking about a "luck surface area"[0], which you can expand, increasing your odds of being "lucky" in the future.

[0]: http://www.codusoperandi.com/posts/increasing-your-luck-surf...

Re:Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball by hoodoof on Monday September 12, 2016 @08:20PM (#12484809)
You make a good point.

This blog post is a common line of messaging in the "how to succeed in startups" - "see what (hugely successful company X) did? That's what you should do, that's how you succeed!"

Truth is that success comes from a somewhat magical mixture of timing, luck, spotting of opportunity, knowing how to build it, having the resources to build it, meeting just the right people at the right time who will play a role in that success, somehow making the product "slightly more right" instead of "slightly more wrong" and sometimes seeing some incredible new way of viewing the world that others don't. Like a magic spell it's a bit of all these ingredients put together in a recipe that, well, works.

Then the bloggers and venture capitalists come along, timeline what you did and say "ha! there is the recipe for success!".

Re:Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball by greghendershott on Monday September 12, 2016 @08:44PM (#12484906)
I agree. Not just lots of companies. Most companies die. ("Hustle" or no.)

However I think that's actually a point in favor of starting small: If you're going to fail? At least fail fast. While you have time to "pivot", or wind down, or whatever makes sense to try instead.

If you're onto something, you can usually tell at a small scale. Sure, sometimes there are network effects and exponential growth. But not hockey sticks. (Source: My own opinion and anecdata.)

Re:Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball by prawn on Monday September 12, 2016 @08:21PM (#12484814)
Haven't heard "goat" used in that context before. In my circles, goat/GOAT would be read as "Greatest Of All Time".
Re:Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball by phonon on Monday September 12, 2016 @08:38PM (#12484889)
Re:Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball by prawn on Monday September 12, 2016 @10:55PM (#12485332)
"Before the final twist, Mack, who led all scorers with 30 points, looked as if he’d go from hero to goat in that split second when he fouled Brown, who led Pitt with 24 points. He admitted he was guilty of the infraction."

Odd that the first example appears to be from a basketball write-up, which is exactly where I very frequently hear the term goat/GOAT used in the sense I described.

Re:Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball by elgenie on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @12:42AM (#12485675)
The cited first sage of "goat"-as-common-idiom-for-failure in that article is from 1912.

The acronym dates back to maybe 1992 or thereabouts: http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2016/07/goat.html

GOAT, the positive acronym, isn't even used in today's sportswriting about basketball (at least without an unpacking explanation). It's more of a slang / online forum term.

Re:Don't Start Big, Start a Little Snowball by ktRolster on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @02:09AM (#12485948)
Elon had a backup plan....if the government couldn't step in, then Google was ready to fund him.