Y Combinator’s New Head

Re:Y Combinator’s New Head by untog on Tuesday March 18, 2014 @10:25PM (#7426466)

Executives are waaaaaaay more succussful than actors in hollywood.

In what sense?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Y Combinator’s New Head by eru on Tuesday March 18, 2014 @10:32PM (#7426489)

More money on average?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Y Combinator’s New Head by untog on Tuesday March 18, 2014 @11:02PM (#7426575)

Does that mean they're more successful? Honest question. Millions of people adore Brad Pitt, very few people know who the CEO of Apple is.

Now don't get me wrong, there are plenty of downsides to being a famous Hollywood actor. But I wouldn't assume success is absolutely all about money.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Y Combinator’s New Head by 001sky on Wednesday March 19, 2014 @12:13AM (#7426784)

For the person who thinks "money" is a shallow, why would "celebrity" be any "more fulfilling"? This is like comparig the health of two kinds of junk food.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Y Combinator’s New Head by untog on Wednesday March 19, 2014 @12:14AM (#7426786)

I'm just questioning why one junk food (as you put it) is more valuable than the other. I am unconvinced that it is.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Y Combinator’s New Head by 001sky on Wednesday March 19, 2014 @01:01AM (#7426917)

Interestingly, this leads to the heart of the analysis. Which is probability of success, control of success factors, and second best outcomes, given success doesn't happen. If you consider those more "rational" metrics (agnostic of money/fame), how would they compare?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Y Combinator’s New Head by eru on Wednesday March 19, 2014 @02:06AM (#7427071)

Second best outcomes (or even median outcomes) cuts to the heart of the matter. C list executives still get good money. C list actors not so much, and not even fame.

[ Parent | on HN ]