4. PG is thinking about YC at a high level of abstraction (e.g., making it a productive place for thinkers and makers like Xerox PARC was) while also having Inside Baseball-level knowledge [1] of YC strategy and tactics (both successes and failures) in ways that most people don’t understand well and don’t really appreciate.
Based on my personal experience and on the experiences of people I know well, most people are fundamentally perceiving the challenges of elite performers vastly different than those elite performers do.
As a simple example in my personal life, I was once a top tier online poker player. Trying to talk about hand histories with lower stakes players, even if they were winners, was an exercise in futility. The things that they had to focus on in their main games was very different what I had to focus on in my main games. Hand reviews that I thought were works of art that showcased high-level thinking were semi-regularly panned by the peanut gallery.
I remember one post in particular where multiple small stakes players were trying to tell me and another winning pro about how bad we were for recommending and explaining a line he took in a medium-stakes live game. We both thought the line was sound both strategically and tactically (although not at all obvious), and all we got were comments like “I wish I was bankrolled for you game… I would clean you out by [insert a strategy that would cause them to be repeatedly violated in those games, even by the “bad” players]”.
I’ve seen similar examples in sports, business, and research.
I think many parts of the HN peanut gallery would probably be well-served by focusing on being more curious and less certain, especially when dealing with people who have been wildly successful in their field of choice.
Note that I’m not saying that 4 is the “right” answer, but I wanted to throw it out there as another possibility.
[1] Inside Baseball is a tv show that goes super deep and super technical into details of baseball-related topics.
Back in the Hackers & Painters days, it seemed like he was writing about a wide variety of topics. Startups were among the things he wrote about, but it wasn't exclusively about them. There were things about management styles, programming languages, even why nerds are not popular in high school.
At some point, I think around the time YC started to become really successful, that changed, and pg started to write basically exclusively about startups. I can understand why, but his essays have been a lot less interesting ever since.
pg actually reminds me of Eliyahu Goldratt, who developed the "theory of constraints"("TOC"). Dr Goldratt was a physicist who then tried to apply the logical problem-solving approach from physics to business problems initially, but whose work has been also used for interpersonal conflict resolution [1]. I get the same vibe from pg's essays, just trying to apply the same critical thinking skills to new areas from first principles, and just trying to see where it leads regardless of what the "established" wisdom is.
If anyone is interested in learning more, most people start by reading "The Goal", which is application of TOC to manufacturing, but if you're interested in how to think about how to apply new technology to existing human systems in a way that actually brings benefits, "beyond the goal" by goldratt is an audiobook that you should really listen to.
Fyi I have no financial interest in TOC :) But if anyone is interested in discussing how TOC thinking might apply to the problems startups face, I'd love to chat, please get in touch! (Contact info in profile)
I like that it is more evidence-based and thought out. However I think applying this is challenging - for the same reason as scrum - because methodologies like this require leaders to let go of their control-ego and trust the system. And systems like TOC which require a lot of thinking, understanding and are easily corrupted by misunderstanding it are fragile to the reality of a hierarchical team structure where the bosses personality can dominate processes more than the process. As such I believe (may not be true) that taking good principles from TOC would be better.
I have seen TOC tried to be applied in a software job and it turned into the typical "JIRA-style" nightmare of estimations, pressure, short term thinking and so on. I don't think that is what TOC is about, but what it can end up with when it hits the ground. SCRUM has the same issues of course. Because these methodologies are not meant to be an al a carte menu of options, where the ones that make the bosses eyes light up are chosen. But they are complete systems. Like it might be fun to only do bench presses at the gym and nothing else, and still eat badly, but that won't work - you need to do the whole regime!
That is why in reality I prefer systems that can be offered al-a-carte. Maybe TOC can be I am not an expert and haven't read the book. But I like for example if someone comes to lead a team and sees how things are done and slowly tweaks things towards a long term goal. For example come in and get people work as a team not individually so that work is delivered sooner and there is less WIP.
A bit rambly but those are my thoughts!
It's hard to tell if there is just enough commenters on HN that dislike PG or if tech folks in general actually have decided to dislike PG.
Regardless, almost every single public figure reputation takes a downturn given enough time. PG is no exception.
While Giannis was the two time NBA MVP and seems relatively universally loved... Many actual basketball fans hate him al la, "I wish I was 7 feet tall and could just dunk every time" - James Harden, and he has not been famous for all that long. He was mvp in 1029. Before that he wasnt really all that well known outside of basketball.
He is 27. He hasnt been famous since he was 17. Maybe since he was 25. Give him a few years. It's almost certain that he has some controversy over the next ten years or he fades into obscurity due to injury, see Greg Oden.
Irrelevant even if it is true.
1) The quantity and quality of new ideas in PG's essays is declining.
2) Readers' expectations of quality in PG's essays is increasing.
3) The pool of disenfranchised readers is growing.
The quantity and quality of new ideas is decreasing because PG naturally wrote down his best ideas a long time ago.
Readers' expectations increases because YC's power and influence grows.
And, the pool of disenfranchised readers grows as more people try to join YC's ranks unsuccessfully.
I feel badly about this because anyone who has interacted with PG irl knows he's as kind-hearted as people come. But, then again, I get the sense this doesn't bother him too much .