News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’ by presbyterian on Monday July 24, 2023 @08:20AM (#36846757)
It’s easy to get lucky several times when you have a rich family that keeps you from truly failing
Re:Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’ by lordnacho on Monday July 24, 2023 @08:27AM (#36846868)
Basically the "no-life-risk" thesis. I don't think it's entirely crazy either, Elon was going to be comfortable whatever he did, and some people in that position will roll the dice several times, and some of those guys will win several times.

Still takes some skill, I don't doubt that. But the main ingredient is risk.

Re:Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’ by coldtea on Monday July 24, 2023 @08:29AM (#36846893)
And yet I don't any great percentage of people from a "rich family" making multi-billion dollar companies.

I'm also pretty sure with his first company sale he made much more money than his family ever had to begin with.

Re:Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’ by SketchySeaBeast on Monday July 24, 2023 @09:11AM (#36847412)
> And yet I don't any great percentage of people from a "rich family" making multi-billion dollar companies.

Because of the rarity of multi-billion dollar companies it makes more sense to flip the question - what are the demographics of those who found those companies?

If the odds of doing something are 1:100 who is going to have better odds at succeeding - the person who gets 1 throw or 10 throws? Neither are guaranteed to succeed, but they both have a chance and one is much more likely than the other. That's what's at play here.

Re:Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’ by zeroonetwothree on Monday July 24, 2023 @10:29AM (#36848570)
There’s a lot more non-rich people though. So even at 1 throw each you’d expect them to be most of the successes under this theory.

Of course there’s also hereditary factors at play that people like to ignore.

Re:Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’ by SketchySeaBeast on Monday July 24, 2023 @10:53AM (#36849021)
> There’s a lot more non-rich people though. So even at 1 throw each you’d expect them to be most of the successes under this theory.

Well, this is why we have to look at the numbers. And it depends on the odds. If it's one in a billion and the rich get ten million throws and the poor get 1 each then the fact there are a lot of non-rich people isn't as impactful.

> Of course there’s also hereditary factors at play that people like to ignore.

Yes, like having cash to throw around and a safety net to rely on so that those shots can be taken as well as easier access to potentially important connections and resources.

Re:Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’ by kergonath on Monday July 24, 2023 @10:16AM (#36848371)
He is an outlier, nobody is disputing that. Regardless of the odds to end up a multi-billionaire from a wealthy background, the odds of doing that from the working class are much lower. It does not mean that it never happens, I am sure there are examples.

> I'm also pretty sure with his first company sale he made much more money than his family ever had to begin with.

Well yeah. But he got there partly because he had some money to invest in the first place, and partly because he had useful connexions.

Re:Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’ by inglor_cz on Monday July 24, 2023 @08:34AM (#36846961)
"It’s easy to get lucky several times when you have a rich family that keeps you from truly failing"

This hypothesis is somewhat testable statistically.

There are approximately 25 thousand people worth 100 million dollars+ in the world, with more than a third of that number residing in the US. [0] I think we can safely say that people worth 100 million and more are rich.

If it is easy to get lucky several times with a rich family, you would expect some nontrivial share of Musk equivalents among them or their kids. Say, two hundred?

Not observed. Either the willingness to risk own money in engineering startups is < 1 per cent among those, or it is not that easy.

[0] https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/money/2022/10/18/us...

Re:Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’ by ethbr0 on Monday July 24, 2023 @08:43AM (#36847079)
> Either the willingness to risk own money in engineering startups is < 1 per cent among those

Maybe? The thing about having a rich family is... you're already rich.

That removes one of the prime motivations to take serious risks, of the sort that paid off for Musk; namely, to become rich.

I'm sure you get a lot of people who invest, or toss some money into this or that.

But I'd be surprised if a significant number invested their entire net worth and time into a single endeavor.

Re:Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’ by inglor_cz on Monday July 24, 2023 @08:54AM (#36847220)
"But I'd be surprised if a significant number invested their entire net worth and time into a single endeavor."

AFAIK Musk was a relative nobody in the millionaire world when he poured a majority of his wealth into SpaceX (2002). They were very close to bankruptcy during the Falcon 1 experiments and if the fourth launch failed, they would have joined a fairly extensive graveyard of defunct space startups, together with Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace and a few hundred others.

Re:Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’ by ethbr0 on Monday July 24, 2023 @10:27AM (#36848538)
By that point, he'd already been CEO of PayPal for a bit (after co-founding X.com that merged into the company that became PayPal) and made $175M for his stake when eBay bought it.

Then $100M went to found SpaceX.

But that does seem like a very large bet that millionaires don't often make.

Re:Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’ by synetic on Monday July 24, 2023 @08:51AM (#36847157)
I believe your analysis is flawed. Children of rich people often times aren’t motivated to be creators or be hard working. It’s not easy succeeding since luck plays a huge role but what is true is the following:

Smart people, who are cutthroat, and who are driven/motivated have a much higher chance of success if they start out rich than those who don’t.

Re:Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’ by inglor_cz on Monday July 24, 2023 @08:55AM (#36847231)
Not even one percent of them?

I get the argument and it has certain logic in it, but surely they all cannot be 100 per cent lazy. And if the non-lazy ones have it relatively easy to succeed, we should see a lot of successes from that cohort, even if they are in a minority compared to their lazy peers.

Re:Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’ by synetic on Monday July 24, 2023 @09:01AM (#36847285)
Much higher chance meaning it goes from something like 0.001% to 0.01%.