News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why's that company so big? I could do that in a weekend. Parent comment

Re:Why's that company so big? I could do that in a weekend by 0xdeadbeefbabe on Monday October 03, 2016 @01:30PM (#12629461)
> The success of many companies, and probably all of the unicorns, has nothing to do with technology.

So why not look at failure then?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why's that company so big? I could do that in a weekend by dragontamer on Monday October 03, 2016 @02:51PM (#12630229)
Its harder to learn from failures than to learn from successes.

Success has the false-positive issue. Failures have the false-negative issue.

Cargo-culting false-positives is going to be less harmful than cargo-culting false-negatives. (X Company didn't use stack-ranking and then failed. Clearly stack-ranking is bad for companies)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why's that company so big? I could do that in a weekend by 0xdeadbeefbabe on Monday October 03, 2016 @03:23PM (#12630485)
Maybe. Just to muddy things even more, some successes are failures.

Have you ever met a billionaire who said, "I was lucky" and left it at that?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why's that company so big? I could do that in a weekend by richie5um on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @02:50AM (#12633731)
Yeah. At least with a success you have a data point that it could be successful - with a failure, you don't even know that.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why's that company so big? I could do that in a weekend by michaelbuckbee on Monday October 03, 2016 @05:01PM (#12631274)
It's not the technology success/failure axis in question, but how much weight to give it relative to other factors.

AKA in predicting overall success would a team with low tech expertise, but high sales expertise be have a better chance?

[ Parent | on HN ]