TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Crazy New Ideas

901 pointsby razinabout 4 years ago

128 comments

geebeeabout 4 years ago
Lots of comments already, but I&#x27;ll chime on in.<p>I realized this very late in life, but I have a test for when it&#x27;s time to pay attention to a new technology. It&#x27;s when technical people look at what seems like a groundbreaking idea, seem unimpressed, and say &quot;couldn&#x27;t you just _____&quot;, were the blank is filled with something a nontechnical person doesn&#x27;t understand or considers very cumbersome.<p>The web: couldn&#x27;t you just transfer a file to an open port and use a rendering tool to view it?<p>Blogs: couldn&#x27;t you just update a web page?<p>Wikis: couldn&#x27;t you just update a web page?<p>social media: couldn&#x27;t you just set up group view preferences and use RSS?<p>youtube: couldn&#x27;t you just upload a video and use tags for search?<p>twitter: couldn&#x27;t you just not? Isn&#x27;t that just a worse version of what we can already do??<p>Honestly, I&#x27;ve overlooked almost every one of these things, because I failed to understand how removing small bits of friction can cause a technology to explode.<p>Sure, some ideas are crazy new, but some sound too underwhelming to be revolutionary. but they are, there&#x27;s no question about it, all those things I listed above changed the world, in ways both good and pretty damn awful.
评论 #27069292 未加载
评论 #27068140 未加载
评论 #27068445 未加载
评论 #27066357 未加载
评论 #27068159 未加载
评论 #27071155 未加载
评论 #27070016 未加载
评论 #27066230 未加载
评论 #27069185 未加载
评论 #27070514 未加载
评论 #27068813 未加载
评论 #27067377 未加载
评论 #27067731 未加载
评论 #27077369 未加载
评论 #27075589 未加载
评论 #27066802 未加载
评论 #27131201 未加载
评论 #27067477 未加载
评论 #27070784 未加载
评论 #27069704 未加载
评论 #27066483 未加载
评论 #27069924 未加载
评论 #27069381 未加载
评论 #27067495 未加载
评论 #27067407 未加载
评论 #27069483 未加载
评论 #27071339 未加载
评论 #27067103 未加载
评论 #27068155 未加载
评论 #27086105 未加载
评论 #27074071 未加载
评论 #27066478 未加载
评论 #27066026 未加载
fillskillsabout 4 years ago
Wow, I came here to say that this was possibly Paul&#x27;s best essay ever. There is so much to learn here. Completely surprised by the negative comments and so many of them :). Specially on an essay that is essentially asking to not being critical right away.<p>In my short startup life, I have had the opportunity of meet many founders, VCs and also get solicited and unsolicited opinions from friends and family. Most of the VCs, friends and family members were critical of my ideas or simply didn&#x27;t spend the effort to really listen. I see the same thing happening to other founders and startups. Specially fun is meeting VCs who have never built a startup themselves or coming from a non technical background be overly critical and share their strongly held opinions on how my startup could fail. I ran out of fingers counting how many ways.<p>Ofcourse a startup can fail. Thats why it&#x27;s not a company yet. There is a saying that it takes many miracles to make a startup a success. Most founders know that already. We are already scared.<p>Paul is suggesting a different approach. A more positive one. And given the statistics around Paul&#x27;s and YC&#x27;s success versus other VCs, you would think that the HN crowd of all people would at-least pay attention.<p>P.S: My startup was rejected multiple times by YC. So not a fan exactly.
评论 #27069853 未加载
评论 #27066560 未加载
de_keyboardabout 4 years ago
I think &quot;attacking&quot; Crazy New Ideas is how we develop them, iron out the kinks and test our understanding. Criticism is an essential part of the journey from crazy new idea to accepted wisdom.<p>However, the main problem I have with with this article is that it divides people into domain experts and the rest. This kind of black and white thinking is pervasive in PG essays, and always lead to a cute conclusion. You can have two domain experts that disagree. You can have an idea that spans multiple domains, and there are no (or few) experts in all of them. Maybe the Crazy New Idea seems brilliant to experts in one domain, but only because they don&#x27;t grasp the others.
评论 #27066075 未加载
评论 #27079344 未加载
评论 #27064390 未加载
评论 #27069862 未加载
merwanedrabout 4 years ago
HN comment section pessimism is a new metric for evaluating your odds of success. &quot;It&#x27;s too expensive&quot; or &quot;Nobody needs it because we have X&quot; on a project lead by a domain expert is not constructive criticism or conservatism, it&#x27;s pure envy.<p>PG isn&#x27;t defending Mighty, Dropbox or Coinbase because he has skin in the game, but because he knows what the teams have achieved and what they could potentially achieve.<p>I don&#x27;t understand, it seems so obvious to me. Dropbox started as a better FTP, Coinbase is a better Bitcoin wallet, Gmail is a better SMTP, Mighty is a better Chrome. All of these products are meant for the masses because the core technologies&#x2F;protocols are too complicated or restrictive to directly interact with.
评论 #27065610 未加载
评论 #27064781 未加载
评论 #27064198 未加载
评论 #27064495 未加载
评论 #27067665 未加载
评论 #27064164 未加载
评论 #27065581 未加载
评论 #27065654 未加载
评论 #27064161 未加载
评论 #27067662 未加载
评论 #27067471 未加载
评论 #27068799 未加载
评论 #27066153 未加载
评论 #27066567 未加载
II2IIabout 4 years ago
The reference to the Copernican Model of the solar system is an interesting one since it produced less accurate predictions than the Ptolemaic Model. Improving the predictions of the Copernican model initially involved the introduction of epicycles, diminishing the value of the crazy new idea.<p>It took the work of Kepler (elliptical orbits) and Newton (a physical basis for elliptical orbits) to elevate the heliocentric model to the status that it enjoys today.<p>There are two reasons why I bring this up: one is the validity of many of Paul Graham&#x27;s assertions and conclusions. The other is to point out that things aren&#x27;t so simple. Copernicus did not reap the rewards of his ideas since it took the work of others to prove those ideas. In fields outside of science, there is little reason to expect people to arrive upon similar conclusions. (Even within the sciences, there is no reason to believe we would converge on similar conclusions in the same time frame via different paths.)
评论 #27063117 未加载
评论 #27065464 未加载
评论 #27062355 未加载
CJeffersonabout 4 years ago
This is an interesting idea, but I feel it&#x27;s not calibrated right -- I&#x27;m an academic, so I&#x27;d imagine I work with many &quot;domain experts&quot; (if you don&#x27;t think so, that&#x27;s of course another valid discussion). I don&#x27;t think &quot;if you bet on the entire set of implausible-sounding ideas proposed by reasonable domain experts, you&#x27;d end up net ahead.&quot;.<p>I hear a implausible sounding ideas all the time. I think one of the main points of academia is to give people the chance to explore those ideas. But they don&#x27;t turn out good &quot;on average&quot;, not even close.
评论 #27063832 未加载
评论 #27062022 未加载
评论 #27061946 未加载
评论 #27074323 未加载
Misdicorlabout 4 years ago
The central thesis<p>&gt; Most implausible-sounding ideas are in fact bad and could be safely dismissed. But not when they&#x27;re proposed by reasonable domain experts.<p>Is later contradicted by a discussion on the quality of criticism<p>&gt; The lowest form [of criticism] of all is to dismiss an idea because of who proposed it.<p>So which is it? Judge an idea by who proposes it or not? I think the essay stands without the tangent on ranking criticism, and it could perhaps be discarded entirely.<p>But that&#x27;s too easy, and I think the discussion of criticism is a strong (unintentional) counterpoint to the essay. You have gated the hard work of weighing an idea behind the reputation of the person who proposed it. History all too often labels a genius only in retrospect and in their own time were more likely to be considered fringe or even crackpots.<p>In short, I think the essay is boiled down to &quot;find the right people to trust&#x2F;engage&#x2F;pursue, and especially don&#x27;t discard their implausible ideas&quot;. The tack on of trying to localize to a &quot;smart domain expert&quot; in whatever you&#x27;re interested in seems.... uninspired. The tack on of being more open to implausible ideas is more interesting. But the fundamental work is unchanged from basically all of human history- &quot;find (or become) the people who are going to be successful&#x2F;transformative&quot;
评论 #27071158 未加载
keiferskiabout 4 years ago
Something I’ve noticed a lot lately is that <i>the people who have crazy new ideas</i> are often <i>the absolute last people that should be communicating them to the world.</i> I’m not sure if it comes from the insularity of academia or just a basic inability to write clearly.<p>My theory is that many domain experts haven’t needed to communicate with a lay audience in decades (if ever) and thus aren’t aware of their own baseline assumptions. Seems like a startup idea, maybe? Convert academic papers into comprehensible English. <i>Two Minute Papers</i> does this but it’s only for technology.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtube.com&#x2F;c&#x2F;K%C3%A1rolyZsolnai" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtube.com&#x2F;c&#x2F;K%C3%A1rolyZsolnai</a><p>This probably applies to early Apple. Wozniak, while clearly a technical genius, needed Jobs’ communication and design skills to sell “personal computing” and make Apple a mass-market company.
评论 #27065879 未加载
评论 #27063043 未加载
kumarvvrabout 4 years ago
Off Topic : The site is sending a GET request to<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;np.lexity.com&#x2F;embed&#x2F;YA&#x2F;fa27bb6ce937aea400cc8e5f11aa42d5&#x2F;v&#x2F;206WqmSFLR7C&#x2F;k&#x2F;Qe4wkfhCjfWQ&#x2F;u&#x2F;http%3A%2F%2Fpaulgraham.com%2Fnewideas.html&#x2F;n&#x2F;1620306880340&#x2F;t&#x2F;Crazy%20New%20Ideas&#x2F;r&#x2F;https%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombinator.com%2F&#x2F;vn&#x2F;1&#x2F;ysid&#x2F;paulgraham&#x2F;bt&#x2F;prod-view&#x2F;ii&#x2F;newideas&#x2F;io&#x2F;2&#x2F;c&#x2F;shrxjhpk.f.kk[0]?id=06de067e4a3b&amp;ts=1620306881136" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;np.lexity.com&#x2F;embed&#x2F;YA&#x2F;fa27bb6ce937aea400cc8e5f11aa42...</a><p>every 5 seconds.<p>Anyone have any idea what it is?<p>Note : The address keeps changing for every request.<p>Edit2 : Is it only on my PC, or are others also able to see it?
评论 #27063274 未加载
评论 #27063308 未加载
bestinterestabout 4 years ago
Very interesting. This sounds like a response to the Mighty [0] launch which Paul Graham has been defending on twitter recently after an outcry from some of the &#x27;hardcore&#x27; developers such as Jonathan Blow [1] and Casey [2].<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mightyapp.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mightyapp.com&#x2F;</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;Jonathan_Blow&#x2F;status&#x2F;1387101172230672389" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;Jonathan_Blow&#x2F;status&#x2F;1387101172230672389</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;cmuratori&#x2F;status&#x2F;1387645578067124224" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;cmuratori&#x2F;status&#x2F;1387645578067124224</a>
评论 #27062172 未加载
评论 #27062045 未加载
评论 #27062007 未加载
评论 #27063636 未加载
评论 #27062659 未加载
评论 #27063185 未加载
评论 #27062001 未加载
评论 #27069524 未加载
评论 #27063176 未加载
评论 #27064432 未加载
评论 #27061922 未加载
评论 #27062197 未加载
评论 #27062002 未加载
评论 #27064193 未加载
评论 #27070343 未加载
评论 #27070491 未加载
评论 #27061907 未加载
mellosoulsabout 4 years ago
<i>But the main thing that leads reasonable people to dismiss new ideas is the same thing that holds people back from proposing them: the sheer pervasiveness of the current paradigm.</i><p>This sounds like the sort of nonsense used by scientific crackpots to attack their critics for &quot;not understanding&quot; them.<p>Sure, your idea may be revolutionary and actually upend everything, but the overwhelming likelihood is it won&#x27;t and you need to go through the same evaluation process as everybody else and not be so salty about that.<p>Incidentally, I find the MightyApp concept interesting and wish it well in forging a new market, but this sort of rationalisation as the &quot;main&quot; driver behind reasonable scepticsm is a very poor defence.
aazaaabout 4 years ago
As an intern I once attended an internal Innovation Symposium hosted by the company I was working for.<p>Most of the speakers talked in glowing terms about innovation, how good it was, and how welcomed it was.<p>But one speaker didn&#x27;t. He said: &quot;You&#x27;ll know you&#x27;re being innovative because you&#x27;ll feel uncomfortable about your idea.&quot;<p>I had never before heard that point of view before, but it clicked.<p>If all of your peers think what you&#x27;re doing is a good idea, maybe it&#x27;s time to re-evaluate how innovative your ideas really are.<p>The problem with all of this is that immature good ideas look and act exactly like crazy ideas. It&#x27;s hard to find comfort pushing on an idea with that fact always in the back of your mind. You could find yourself years down the road with nothing to show for all that effort.
nearbuyabout 4 years ago
&gt; Whatever the church thought of the heliocentric model, astronomers must have been convinced as soon as Copernicus proposed it. Far, in fact, from it.<p>I don&#x27;t think this tells the whole story. The church didn&#x27;t immediately view the heliocentric model as a crazy new idea.<p>&gt; In 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered a series of lectures in Rome outlining Copernicus&#x27;s theory. Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals heard the lectures and were interested in the theory. On 1 November 1536, Cardinal Nikolaus von Schönberg, Archbishop of Capua, wrote to Copernicus from Rome:<p>&gt; &quot;... Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject ...&quot;<p>(From <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Nicolaus_Copernicus#Heliocentrism" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Nicolaus_Copernicus#Heliocentr...</a>)<p>The church&#x27;s stance against the heliocentric model developed later, and probably for religious and political reasons.<p>Secondly, rational astronomers shouldn&#x27;t have been convinced of the model as soon as Copernicus proposed it. It wasn&#x27;t yet proven. It&#x27;s like string theory today. It may have been an elegant theory, but a good scientist shouldn&#x27;t consider a theory proven until it&#x27;s actually proven.<p>Relating this back more generally to the essay, I think there&#x27;s a bias in how we retell stories from history that makes it seem like great new ideas were initially mostly considered crazy. It makes a better story when one person overcomes the odds and invents something great despite everyone telling them they&#x27;re crazy. But reality, most new ideas had a mix of detractors and supporters. We just remember the detractors better and amuse ourselves thinking about how wrong they were.
activatedgeekabout 4 years ago
I think the key statement to realize here is this,<p>&gt; Most implausible-sounding ideas are in fact bad and could be safely dismissed. But not when they&#x27;re proposed by reasonable domain experts.<p>Off the top of my head, I vaguely remember that the latter half of the careers of many &quot;greats&quot; like Einstein, Fermi, Erdos were riddled with pursuing directions which bore no fruit (to this day).<p>I don&#x27;t quite think that crazy bets work on &quot;average&quot;. On average they fail. It mostly so happens that crazy bets are on &quot;average&quot; taken by people with a network that can attract able and passionate people, who can see through an idea to its conclusion. This is where experts come in.<p>Experts often rely on validation by their &quot;community&quot;, and by the nature of community dynamics need to upsell. They naturally attract the kind of people needed to execute crazy ideas. But then attracting such talent also has a corrective effect on the originally crazy idea, such that it has a higher chance of succeeding by minimizing the blind spots, the unknown unknowns.
评论 #27062625 未加载
评论 #27068396 未加载
评论 #27069177 未加载
stephc_int13about 4 years ago
In case someone missed the story, Paul Graham is indirectly talking about the feedback received by Mighty App.<p>And in this particular case, I don&#x27;t think this is a valid defense.<p>First, he clearly has too much skin in the game to be credibly neutral about it.<p>Second, he avoids addressing the main critique about this &quot;new tech&quot;.<p>People are not claiming that it is a bad idea because it is infeasible or not valuable, but because it is dangerous and also because it sounds technically ridiculous. (thin client inside thin client)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mightyapp.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mightyapp.com&#x2F;</a> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;Jonathan_Blow&#x2F;status&#x2F;1387101172230672389" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;Jonathan_Blow&#x2F;status&#x2F;1387101172230672389</a> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;cmuratori&#x2F;status&#x2F;1387645578067124224" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;cmuratori&#x2F;status&#x2F;1387645578067124224</a>
评论 #27063552 未加载
评论 #27063203 未加载
评论 #27064951 未加载
评论 #27062838 未加载
评论 #27064141 未加载
评论 #27065925 未加载
评论 #27063180 未加载
评论 #27065084 未加载
评论 #27064457 未加载
评论 #27065943 未加载
评论 #27063119 未加载
评论 #27065137 未加载
评论 #27065284 未加载
评论 #27072966 未加载
评论 #27065261 未加载
评论 #27063193 未加载
评论 #27064498 未加载
评论 #27066463 未加载
评论 #27063027 未加载
评论 #27071647 未加载
评论 #27063161 未加载
评论 #27066189 未加载
评论 #27063338 未加载
评论 #27064379 未加载
评论 #27064249 未加载
评论 #27063261 未加载
ammar_xabout 4 years ago
The main idea of the article is that when someone who is a domain expert proposes an idea that seems wrong, there is a chance that this idea is a great idea because why would a smart person proposes a stupid idea? They must&#x27;ve known something.<p>He says that in history, great ideas started like that. But he didn&#x27;t provide examples. I didn&#x27;t find the article practical because of that. It would have been a lot more useful if it provided contemporary examples that support the claims made.
评论 #27069981 未加载
评论 #27069557 未加载
kehrlannabout 4 years ago
It&#x27;s also a common theme for Kent Beck, who &quot;invented&quot; extreme programming.<p>&gt; i have good ideas, i just don&#x27;t know which of them are good up front. hence, looking foolish is a prerequisite for looking smart.<p>Source: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mobile.twitter.com&#x2F;kentbeck&#x2F;status&#x2F;113298851665948672" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mobile.twitter.com&#x2F;kentbeck&#x2F;status&#x2F;11329885166594867...</a>
bob33212about 4 years ago
This is a great essay. I follow similar logic when assessing bitcoin.<p>1. Listen to as many viewpoints as possible 2. Remove the people who are not domain experts 3. Remove the people who are blinded by their own financial interests or ego. 4. Remove the people who are influenced by social pressures ( good and bad ) 5. Assign probabilities to the remaining viewpoints evenly. 6. Repeat steps 1-5 and chart the progression of the probability space.<p>Currently, It seems 40%+ likely that Bitcoin will end up as an accidental Ponzi scheme with a crash based on late adopters rushing out. But there is also still a 10%+ chance that it replaces gold as a currency hedge for the next 20+ years and 5+ percent chance that it becomes a first class currency.
评论 #27062536 未加载
评论 #27062422 未加载
sirsinsalotabout 4 years ago
Let&#x27;s not kid ourselves, this thin-client re-package is a marketing effort to push forward a paradigm shift that allows companies to grab more power and control of our 1&#x27;s and 0&#x27;s<p>... whatever value proposition it is packaged up in is just marketing and propaganda ... even if they charge money for it.
bernulliabout 4 years ago
My favorite crazy ideas from Science are<p>- &quot;Imagine, they&#x27;re like really small animals, but the&#x27;re too small to see! The&#x27;re everywhere! They live on us, in us, around us! They are what makes us sick!&quot; (Pasteur, germ theory of diseases)<p>- &quot;You know how there can be mountains as huge as the Himalaya? Easy! In reality, all continents are really like small leaves floating on a see of magma, and they&#x27;re bouncing into each other, and when they crash we get these huge mountain ranges and continents.&quot; (Alfred Wegener, tectonic plates)<p>- &quot;You know time? Yeah, it&#x27;s really different for everyone, and there isn&#x27;t even a thing such as &#x27;simultaneous&#x27;. I&#x27;m serious! Just imagine riding on a train and playing with a flashlight and a watch!&quot; (some patent clerk in Switzerland)
评论 #27069941 未加载
aerosmileabout 4 years ago
There are two ways of looking at this:<p>1. PG is selling us something. 2. PG just open-sourced a part that seems like a component of the YC admissions logic.<p>I personally don&#x27;t care if it&#x27;s just 2) or if it&#x27;s 1) and 2) - in each case I get to learn something new and for that I am grateful. Basically, they must have established that whenever they can&#x27;t tell if you&#x27;re right or wrong, they ask themselves how likely are you to know something that they don&#x27;t. This seems obvious enough, but only after you&#x27;ve heard it explained. Also, it might be obvious to each individual to a different degree, so when you consider that YC applications are reviewed by a large group of people, it&#x27;s almost certain that this is all codified in such a way that the reviewers are not just judging the startup alone, but likely also the founder independently of their startup. As you can tell, I clearly don&#x27;t have any inside knowledge here and this is all just speculation. But if I were to submit a YC application, I would certainly ask myself now more than ever before how to make people believe that I am an expert in the field of my startup.
aparsonsabout 4 years ago
I think a lot of people - dare I say it, even PaulG - are missing the point of Mighty (or not putting it into words properly).<p>Mighty isn’t betting on the internet continually getting more bloated, or being better than a thick client. Even for a poor person working mostly in Figma, buying a decent laptop will be much more cost-effective.<p>What they are really selling is the equivalent of upgrading your laptop to a new model while it’s still running. Hardware shopping is time-consuming, stressful, and never done proactively - so you suffer in silence till the new one arrives. Then you have to replicate your old workflow and warm the caches.<p>The two biggest threats to Mighty are Apple&#x2F;MSFT building “snapshot” recoveries in new hardware (almost AMI-like), and real adoption of saving bookmarks, history and passwords to the cloud by signing in to Chrome (most I know are hesitant). As has always been the case in this industry, the hardware is irrelevant.<p>This isn’t game-streaming, where you unlock hardware economies of scale because most users play a tiny amount a day on average. Your browser is always on.
评论 #27063777 未加载
rsp1984about 4 years ago
I agree with the general gist of this, however the crux is that most ideas that turn out to be revolutionary just don&#x27;t originate within the accepted circle of domain experts, exactly <i>because</i> being a domain expert makes you more unlikely to think out of the box.<p>Google didn&#x27;t come out of Yahoo. Napster wasn&#x27;t founded by music industry execs. Friendster didn&#x27;t evolve into Facebook. Match.com didn&#x27;t invent Tinder. It&#x27;s often the curious outsiders that disrupt the status quo, not the well connected insiders.
评论 #27062230 未加载
评论 #27062263 未加载
评论 #27062213 未加载
评论 #27062290 未加载
评论 #27062567 未加载
评论 #27062598 未加载
评论 #27062898 未加载
评论 #27062327 未加载
评论 #27062668 未加载
评论 #27062297 未加载
评论 #27062325 未加载
评论 #27062655 未加载
dataviz1000about 4 years ago
Isn&#x27;t this the issue Joseph Campbell addressed? The journey a person with a crazy new idea endures? And, how in all different cultures the redeemer, a person solving an issue that their society needs to address, have the same symbolic characteristics. You and your children experience this not in a philosophy or mythology class but at every moment someone mentions a Star Wars or Marvel reference[0]. Disney keeps telling this one story over and over again, a story of a person with a crazy new idea being ostracized and rejected by their society and the journey they have to make to return to their society with a new solution to a problem.<p>The system, lol, I mean our culture and society, is very resilient to change. If it wasn&#x27;t, it would be a different system. A part of the resilience, the reason it doesn&#x27;t crash down into chaos and anarchy is because it rejects and ostracizes people with new ideas. It&#x27;s by design, how it evolved. However, it also needs to evolve and grow and the people who do that have to endure.<p>Not all people who are on this &#x27;Hero&#x27;s Journey&#x27; are correct. Disney isn&#x27;t addressing whether the crazy new idea is good or not, although in their media it is always a good idea, which is what Paul Graham is writing about. Their stories are addressing the journey a person endures if they have any crazy new idea that challenges their culture and society, good or bad. Whereas, Paul Graham is looking to quantify signals that a crazy new idea is good, something he should invest in. To which, I&#x27;d add asking if the person with a crazy new idea is honest, not only to other people, but more importantly honest to themselves, integrity. If a person can separate delusion from fact except for that one idea, that&#x27;s a signal.<p>[0]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;livingspirit.typepad.com&#x2F;files&#x2F;chris-vogler-memo-1.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;livingspirit.typepad.com&#x2F;files&#x2F;chris-vogler-memo-1.p...</a>
评论 #27069161 未加载
评论 #27066797 未加载
SigmundAabout 4 years ago
“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” -Sagan
rogers18445about 4 years ago
The Mighty App will either die or become a privacy nightmare. Because a browser can run arbitrary compute it will be abused, and if they don&#x27;t want to die they will have to spy on what their users are doing to find abuse.
jimhiabout 4 years ago
In the realm of entrepreneurship, I think domain experts who also risk tons of their cash on crazy ideas should be looked at even closer.<p>Y Combinator and Tesla were seen as stupid and crazy for a long time. Meanwhile I’ve seen a lot of domain expert entrepreneurs do really crazy things that lead nowhere when it’s VC money instead of theirs.
评论 #27062149 未加载
qshamanabout 4 years ago
He is an investor on this “crazy new idea” , I don’t believe him, he is just hustling his audience and trying to create hype about a product that is neither new nor competitive. People like Guido van Rossum , James Gosling , Bjarne Stroustrup , just to mention a few, have contributed way more to the field and have earned the respect of millions , you don’t see them hyping crappy startups for a few bucks (billions* ) . I do respect the founders , and understand the have worked hard on this project , I just don’t think that just working hard on something makes it good , or whatever Paul Graham says is something I should accept as truth.
评论 #27064942 未加载
评论 #27066036 未加载
评论 #27066107 未加载
bttrflabout 4 years ago
Unrelated to PG&#x27;s post... I had no clue what MightyApp is so I went to their website [0]. When I scrolled to &quot;Work without the fan noise&quot; section on the homepage my fan started to work pretty hard. Haven&#x27;t checked if they intentionally got the fan to work, but it was a nice coincidence.<p>[0] mightyapp.com
评论 #27065638 未加载
评论 #27065937 未加载
nottorpabout 4 years ago
If this is about Mighty, the bad parts of it aren&#x27;t technical.<p>- Even with today&#x27;s concentration of information, there are several independent information sources left... and they want us to access them from a single point of failure?<p>- Who pays for this and how? How do I install my own ad blockers and anti tracking extensions on Mighty? Am I supposed to just trust them that they won&#x27;t sell my advertising profile?<p>- What happens to the sites Mighty management disagrees with? Do they become inaccessible? Or they render badly? Especially since they&#x27;re an American company and society is getting ultra polarized over there...
评论 #27064413 未加载
评论 #27066475 未加载
21elevenabout 4 years ago
I think there is some evolutionary psychology at play in people&#x27;s bias against &quot;Crazy New Ideas&quot;. A human hunting and gathering on a savanna with a crazy new idea is likely to be killed by a lion or starve. Sure the new ideas sometimes were breakthroughs but the idea-haver&#x27;s peers likely experienced strong selective pressure to wait until there was good evidence that an idea was unlikely to get one killed before endorsing it and practicing it themselves.<p>In modern times we should feel more safe to have &quot;Crazy New Ideas&quot;, we probably need them to solve many of the problems our world faces today. But we are biased against new ideas since our brains have evolved to see them associated with negative outcomes like death by lion or exile from the tribe. There is a lower risk of death by big cat today so people should feel more willing to have an celebrate new ideas.
GnarfGnarfabout 4 years ago
There is no question that many important ideas sounded crazy at first.<p>The problem is that these ideas are a tiny minority of all new ideas.<p>The vast majority of new ideas are eventually proven invalid.<p>So just because an idea is rejected, does not mean that it is guaranteed to triumph.
codingdaveabout 4 years ago
&gt; Someone proposes an idea that sounds crazy, most people dismiss it, then it gradually takes over the world.<p>This is survivorship bias. He is not wrong in that yes, we should consider ideas from domain experts carefully and not be overly dismissive. But it is absolutely survivorship bias to believe that every crazy idea from a domain expert worked out.
评论 #27062471 未加载
评论 #27062489 未加载
评论 #27062591 未加载
评论 #27062673 未加载
评论 #27062672 未加载
davesqueabout 4 years ago
It seems people often have a weird &quot;anti-bias&quot; to believe that everything that goes on to be wildly successful was originally dismissed as ridiculous or impossible. First of all, it&#x27;s not true. There are plenty of examples of ideas that seemed good to begin with and turned out to be good in practice. So something seeming ridiculous doesn&#x27;t really count as an important quality in predicting success. Secondly, even if it were somehow true that all successful ideas seemed ridiculous, that <i>still</i> says nothing about how likely something is to succeed. What percentage of failed ideas originally seemed ridiculous? It&#x27;s also an important question, but I guess one you don&#x27;t need to answer if you&#x27;re a billionaire and have a large audience of worshipers.<p>Sometimes a stupid idea is just that.
评论 #27068364 未加载
new_realistabout 4 years ago
“Please work on new things and sell me your equity a pittance, so that I may become richer on a few home runs, while most of you fail miserably.”
dukeofdoomabout 4 years ago
Seems like the privacy implications of this are not worth it for any serious company.<p>I was watching Rudy Giuliani yesterday on youtube, talk about how the FBI accessed and monitored his iCloud account for over a year. Which included his privileged lawyer&#x2F;client information. If they can do that to a president&#x27;s lawyer, while he&#x27;s defending the president. They can do it to anyone.
评论 #27075384 未加载
darkersideabout 4 years ago
&gt; Another reason people dismiss new ideas is that it&#x27;s an easy way to seem sophisticated. When a new idea first emerges, it usually seems pretty feeble. It&#x27;s a mere hatchling. Received wisdom is full-grown eagle by comparison. So it&#x27;s easy to launch a devastating attack on a new idea, and anyone who does will seem clever to those who don&#x27;t understand this asymmetry.<p>I wonder if most people realize this? In my experience, it seems like a characteristic that defies intellect and education. Incredibly smart people are, if anything, someone&#x27;s more dismissive of new ideas because of their confidence that it just won&#x27;t work.
评论 #27073003 未加载
robomartinabout 4 years ago
&gt; it&#x27;s easy to launch a devastating attack on a new idea, and anyone who does will seem clever<p>This happened to me when I was younger. I had an idea that could best be described as Uber, years before Uber existed. I worked hard on analyzing this idea, preparing all sorts of financials, enrolling in an incubator program to understand how to pitch, getting help everywhere I could.<p>The incubator held a pitch event that would be attended by a range of people from different professions and judged by a panel of their choosing.<p>I made my presentation. It went very well. Until one of the five judges essentially took over. Up until then I had received reasonable questions and offered reasonable answers. He chose to be brutally dismissive. I don&#x27;t know his background but the guy attacked at such a level that no other judge asked any questions. It was truly distressing, to say the least. Once the firing squad treatment ended I said &quot;thank you&quot; and left the auditorium.<p>I must have been obviously fuming and the attack must have been obviously unfair to some in the audience because an executive from UPS (the shipping company) decided to follow me out and talk to me. After calming me down he said he though my idea was excellent, that it needed refinement and that I should not give up on account of that jerk. Still, I was rattled. Definitely.<p>I was too young and stupid to process that event for what it was: A jerk being elevated to judging startup ideas who was there to feel superior by hurting people. Again, I was too young to process that and I did not have anyone around to help me get past it. I quit. I abandoned that particular dream. All because of that one jerk.<p>Now, many years later, I wish I hadn&#x27;t. I wish I had been equipped with the wisdom to dismiss him for what he was and move on. Again, too young, didn&#x27;t have enough experience and this guy was at the right place and the right time to destroy me. And that he did.<p>Thankfully my career moved on. I have nothing to complain about. I sometimes wonder how much of that goes on in the startup scene. I wonder how many great ideas (or potential entrepreneurs) evaporate because of assholes who want to &quot;seem clever&quot;.
motohagiographyabout 4 years ago
A fast heuristic on the value of crazy ideas would be: a) is the premise of this idea based on the rejection or falsification of an established consensus or convention, and b) does this person (the proponent) survive?<p>A crazy idea is just betting a majority is wrong. What makes it smart is not about being right, it&#x27;s that you have figured out how to make money if the consensus is vulnerable or wrong.<p>Some of the the biggest startups and plays of the last decade were bets against conventions and rich country taboos like letting strangers crash on your couch, driving strangers around in your car, straight women wanting anonymous hookups and the normalization of sex work, non-technical people using cryptography, working class people investing in alterantive assets - let alone understanding what a short squeeze is enough to execute one, watching movies on little laptop screens.<p>What makes an idea &#x27;crazy&#x27; is that it is against one that people align with because the alignment itself means being aligned to power. Most of what people believe, they do so because it <i>works</i> for them, and by works I mean aligns them to what they percieve to be powerful. Most money seems to be made getting short weaker middle class conventions.<p>A crazy idea is making the call that an emperor has no clothes. I suspect the secret to getting short naked emperors is not so much a track record for upholding convention, but rather, a track record of suviving.
cptajabout 4 years ago
The problem with this is selection bias. When you say you&#x27;ve studied the &quot;history of ideas&quot;, what you&#x27;ve actually studied is the history of notorious ideas that worked.<p>You have nothing remotely resembling a proper sampling of ideas. The ones that failed simply get forgotten
visargaabout 4 years ago
This video is relevant. They talk about &quot;openendedness&quot;, serendipity, the tyranny of objectives, the evolution of ideas (and biology), inventing new problems not just solving problems.<p>There are important implications in AI. Kenneth Stanley - Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned on Machine Learning Street Talk.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=lhYGXYeMq_E&amp;t=3016s" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=lhYGXYeMq_E&amp;t=3016s</a>
评论 #27062860 未加载
crypticaabout 4 years ago
This is article comes at a good time. I feel like the tech sector over the past 10 years has been focusing mostly on very safe bets.<p>It&#x27;s been shocking for me to see how terrified multi-millionaires are to invest even $100K into a risky but potentially transformative project; instead preferring to pile onto the latest hot startups which other big investors are dumping their money into... Like a herd of sheep. This behavior underlies a lack of self-confidence.<p>When you have a lot of money, your odds of success are much better, so why waste it and act like a sheep? Is it because a lot of wealthy people nowadays come from lower classes and they&#x27;ve struggled to shake off the herd mentality which is so pervasive among the lower classes of society? They think they&#x27;re playing the same game as before; with all odds stacked against them, but this mindset is counterproductive to a wealthy person. Once you have a lot of money, the game is rigged in your favor, not against you; there is no excuse to act like a sheep anymore.<p>If the majority of rich people keep acting like sheep, the system will collapse under its own weight from the sheer inefficiency. Capitalism doesn&#x27;t tolerate deadweight; it shakes it all off sooner or later.<p>Now investors are realizing that if they want to only make safe bets, then they should just invest in Bitcoin or some other scheme with high network effects... Maybe now is a good time for investors to actually judge investments based on their disruptive potential instead of just looking to other investors to outsource decisions. If you just want to participate in a social scheme; just invest in crypto. If you want to invest in a business, then you can&#x27;t avoid taking risks!
DoreenMicheleabout 4 years ago
When I look back at video clips from the 1970s, there was a diversity there that has been sort of lost. Things got developed in smaller regions and if they were good enough, they got introduced to a larger world. So we got some variety without everything having to overcome a perception of &quot;crazy.&quot;<p>Now we kind of think everyone is so connected that you have to be &quot;crazy&quot; to think X rather than realizing sometimes X makes perfect sense locally and it only seems bizarre to outsiders. &quot;Crazy&quot; often means it&#x27;s a radical departure from existing ideas rather than an incremental improvement and there used to be more latitude for saying &quot;Hey, let&#x27;s import this idea from elsewhere that seems crazy here but it&#x27;s proven and solid somewhere else.&quot;<p>And I think that&#x27;s a challenge we need to work on. The world seemed really cool and exciting about forty or fifty years ago and I think that&#x27;s because things were only starting to get connected. Now we are sort of over-connected and expected to all know what &quot;normal&quot; is, as if <i>normal</i> is the same the world over when it isn&#x27;t.<p>I think there is a cost to that.
tw04about 4 years ago
&gt;The reason is that everyone is too conservative.<p>Everyone isn&#x27;t too conservative: veterans in a field are conservative because they have earned the war wounds they carry. Which is why you tend to see &quot;disruptive apps&quot; targeting younger people. They don&#x27;t have the life experience to understand, at first glance, why an idea may be extremely dangerous.<p>I&#x27;m young enough to remember being that way myself: Who cares if someone gets my bank account info, what are they going to do, pay off my student loans? Spend the $25 I have in my checking account? Oh no!<p>I abhor people who throw around the idea that someone in tech being &quot;conservative&quot; is somehow wrong or bad. They&#x27;re conservative because they know just how much is at risk for the folks who don&#x27;t know any better.
评论 #27063741 未加载
评论 #27063581 未加载
评论 #27065481 未加载
评论 #27065511 未加载
评论 #27064915 未加载
halfmatthalfcatabout 4 years ago
I feel like the same thing can be said about Boring Old Ideas. If the person who is speaking to you <i>knows</i> what they&#x27;re talking about, there&#x27;s good chance that they&#x27;ve identified a gap&#x2F;opportunity and you <i>should</i> listen to them.<p>This seems more like an exercise in listening and trust than whether the idea is crazy or novel.
unchockedabout 4 years ago
Might as well introduce this project here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;planetarysunshade.org" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;planetarysunshade.org</a><p>We are domain experts, and are developing the support of domain eminences. It&#x27;s an umbrella organization for anyone working on space-based climate intervention. Happy to chat with interested parties.
danybittelabout 4 years ago
That is kind of reaching for the stars. Or shall I say last straw argument. I think a much easier winner is if you have a domain expert in one area and bring his or her knowledge to another field. A Designer who creates a web app to design logos. A fitness guru who develops a Drink. A car maker who builds space ships.
jgalt212about 4 years ago
as PG has gotten richer, astoundingly so, I feel his writing has become of lower quality and less general utility. But, that&#x27;s fine. I don&#x27;t have to read it, but I do still adore and re-read his older works.<p>That being said, it&#x27;s amazing that mental gymnastics all VCs these days will go through to make something that&#x27;s completely nonsensical seem like it &quot;could&quot; make sense. e.g. NFTs and Andreesen Horowitz
talkingtababout 4 years ago
I believe there is another factor, a bit more subtle, but I wonder if it is more pervasive.<p>Humans need to act. In order to act we need to believe that our actions are actionable. Anything, anything at all, that leaves us unable to act is a threat to our survival. A bear jumps out at you. Being unable to act because you don&#x27;t know whether to play dead or run is deadly. Being unable to decide whether to wear a mask or not is deadly, even if both choices are both right or wrong. Maybe not said well, but when you consider all the actions you take in a day and what would happen if we could not decide.<p>As a side effect, I wonder if simply voicing ideas or bringing into view concepts that challenge the certainty we each require in order to get through a day, is in fact threatening.
madroxabout 4 years ago
Ironically, I&#x27;d dismiss this if it wasn&#x27;t PG saying it, but this has survivor bias written all over it. No one remembers the ideas that were dismissed by domain experts that did not make it. This is the exact same argument that says college dropouts make the best CEOs.
_ot4tabout 4 years ago
This post seems to be in response to the recent Mighty app.<p>To me, the main problem lies in what VCs think pass as &#x27;tech&#x27;. The mighty app website made it sound it like it was some novel revolutionary app.<p>I was hoping it was really something clever like what the Cloudflare people or even game streaming companies do. But nope.<p>It&#x27;s significantly worse: it&#x27;s literally slapping together existing tech and calling it novel. And worse, simple security&#x2F;privacy seem to have taken a backseat as if there is some innovative performance-oriented solution being prioritized here.<p>There doesn&#x27;t seem to be any tech. But reading through the website, one might be mistakenly led to believe it is something of a hard problem to solve. In fact the person running the show admits to how they pivoted from a Windows VM company to running just Chrome. This is reality distortion at best. Running an Electron app to stream a live Chrome VM session seems like a CS401 style project.<p>This is similar to Uber or AirBNB: the value add is in slapping together some quick existing tech with the main &#x27;innovation&#x27; being the funding system or creatively working around regulatory&#x2F;legal hurdles.<p>I find it amusing and sad that there isn&#x27;t any new tech nor even a sound financial plan for a lot of these companies (nor even a so-called moat beyond just siloing their first mover advantage behind legal paperwork).<p>It seems as though the 90s VCs funded actual technically sound, innovative, &quot;pushing the envelope yet making money&quot; companies.<p>These days it&#x27;s a popularity and ego matching competition among VCs and founders. This isn&#x27;t tech. This is throwing money at a problem inefficiently and seeing what sticks. The people that work in this space are rather uninspiring, technically demotivated but financially motivated group.<p>I hate to think that this is the new &#x27;tech&#x27; world that was promised. I don&#x27;t even want to start on Jonathan&#x2F;Casey comments as they are obviously right but that&#x27;s besides the point here.<p>Makes me wonder if Mighty or Clubhouse (or even Lambda school&#x2F;Coinbase) are the stellar examples a budding CS student is going to look up to: which is sad and makes me really wish for the 90s VCs to come back and fund more technically&#x2F;financially sound and inspiring companies.
评论 #27065467 未加载
评论 #27064923 未加载
评论 #27065424 未加载
评论 #27064269 未加载
评论 #27081175 未加载
Y_Yabout 4 years ago
I was hoping he was going to provide a list of examples.
9erdeltaabout 4 years ago
&gt; Anyone who has studied the history of ideas, and especially the history of science, knows that&#x27;s how big things start. Someone proposes an idea that sounds crazy, most people dismiss it, then it gradually takes over the world.<p>Funny how he says this but then later goes on to mention Darwin. Perhaps we could say part of the natural selection of new &quot;big things&quot; is if they (both the ideas and the people) survive the early dismissiveness and criticism. I would welcome criticism from highly experienced and conservative people, because if you can respond meaningfully and survive - you&#x27;re probably on to something.
mcguireabout 4 years ago
&quot;<i>I&#x27;m not claiming this principle extends much beyond math, engineering, and the hard sciences. In politics, for example, crazy-sounding ideas generally are as bad as they sound. Though arguably this is not an exception, because the people who propose them are not in fact domain experts; politicians are domain experts in political tactics, like how to get elected and how to get legislation passed, but not in the world that policy acts upon. Perhaps no one could be.</i>&quot;<p>Weird. Math, engineering, and the hard sciences are the few places where it is possible to positively say an idea won&#x27;t work.
UncleMeatabout 4 years ago
I really wish PG would actually talk to some historians. History of Science is an extremely deep field with tons of professionals who have spent their lives studying this material. His overview is shallow. The only history book he cites is from <i>fifty years ago</i>!<p>It is so frustrating. There is this huge wealth of content available and a large group of people who&#x27;d want nothing more to be able to share what they know about the history of science and instead we get think pieces based in hunches, feelings, and generalities. The historians are right there! They want to talk to you!
评论 #27063124 未加载
评论 #27063012 未加载
评论 #27063497 未加载
评论 #27064525 未加载
arua442about 4 years ago
I don&#x27;t like how Paul&#x27;s writing always gets hundreds of likes just because it&#x27;s by him.<p>Not everything he writes is amazing. I wish there wasn&#x27;t such a cult around him.
评论 #27065058 未加载
评论 #27063458 未加载
评论 #27063887 未加载
评论 #27065458 未加载
评论 #27064853 未加载
评论 #27064109 未加载
评论 #27064903 未加载
评论 #27066508 未加载
guerrillaabout 4 years ago
Weird pop psy in the middle of this article. Forgive me if I don&#x27;t just take your word on millions of people&#x27;s motivations with no data or argument.
rikrootsabout 4 years ago
The alternative, of course, is when a plausible person expresses an implausible-sounding idea which turns out to be, well, wrong. For instance when Noam Chomsky presented his theory of Universal Grammar[1] which managed to impede and derail the study of linguistics for decades[2].<p>[1] - This is my own personal opinion supported by no evidence whatsoever.<p>[2] - Again, an outrageously subjective statement without an ounce of evidence to support it.
评论 #27068137 未加载
hyperpallium2about 4 years ago
<p><pre><code> A new idea is a beautiful and fragile thing. Attack people, not ideas. </code></pre> Explains those attacking pg instead of his ideas. I guess.<p>Reasonable domain experts sometimes keep proposing the same idea, because it would <i>be so cool</i>. e.g. onlive, gaikai, stadia. Investors overlook the latency problem (BTW starlink might solve this) because of its compelling business advantages. Aka wishful thinking.<p>Analogous to Chesterton&#x27;s fence (reforms should not be made until reasons for the current system are understood), paradigm-breakers could say upfront what new insight makes their idea plausible. This also makes for compelling and exciting marketing.<p>I really like the section on paradigms, particularly how they &quot;vacuum up the trail of crumbs that led to them&quot;.<p>On the one hand, becoming proficient in the current paradigm makes it harder to see other ways (<i>in the beginner&#x27;s mind there are many possibilities, in the expert&#x27;s mind there are few</i>), not least of all because of its cognitive load. On the other hand, without that proficiency, you can&#x27;t stand on the shoulders of giants.
Tychoabout 4 years ago
My favourite type of dismissal is:<p>&quot;X is a stupid idea that nobody asked for and it will never even work. Besides we already have Y[1], so this is nothing new.&quot;<p>[1] Where <i>Y</i> is some product that foreshadows the functionality of X and is already successful among some set of users, although has some incidental limitations that prevent its growth
robofanaticabout 4 years ago
The title is misleading. I went into it thinking I will find some new crazy ideas, but there were none.
kbutlerabout 4 years ago
Sounds like an essay to state Arthur C. Clarke&#x27;s &quot;First Law&quot;:<p><pre><code> When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. </code></pre> ...which really just boils down to &quot;it&#x27;s probably possible&quot;.<p>Here are the three:<p><pre><code> 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.</code></pre>
Mulpze15about 4 years ago
This essay resonates a lot. I have currently a crazy new idea. I feel I am a domain expert. I am working really hard on it and have good feedback from non tech people in the domain.<p>Still, so many non experts dismiss my ideas and prototypes. Without asking Why, How, etc. And feeling good about themselves, tapping themselves in the back for &quot;helping me make my ideas better&quot;.<p>I am not talking about other domain experts, those criticisms are super interesting. But being a computer dev and&#x2F;or being smart in your domain does not make you a domain expert in my domain.<p>The ratio of supportive people vs incompetent critics is astounding. Even as I have one successful company behind me already. The lonely reference at the end feels right.
dd36about 4 years ago
I wonder if the backlash to Mighty and the resulting defensiveness will cause it to persist longer than it would have had it announced earlier or gotten less friendly feedback. Presuming it doesn’t get the widespread traction it was hoping for.
tworatsabout 4 years ago
&gt; The rewards for working on new ideas are weighted by the value of the outcome. So it&#x27;s worth working on something that only has a 10% chance of succeeding if it would make things more than 10x better<p>This is the primary point here - the &quot;crazy idea&quot; may (and likely does) have a low probability of being correct and succeeding, but with an outsized reward it may still be worth pursuing. This is, almost by definition, the correct way of looking at it.<p>Also note that he&#x27;s talking about crazy ideas from &quot;reasonable domain experts&quot;, not your run of the mill crazy.<p>This is not just a response to Mighty - he&#x27;s been talking about this for years.
bombcarabout 4 years ago
The problem I immediately see is that you have to qualify your domain experts. If it&#x27;s someone you personally know, perhaps it would apply - otherwise you&#x27;re opening yourself pretty wide to domain experts out to scam you.
评论 #27064043 未加载
rmasonabout 4 years ago
One area PG missed is someone, exceedingly bright, who gets interested in a totally new field where they have little or no expertise.<p>Using first principles they announce a bold and crazy idea. Say like Elon Musk and rockets. Sure he read some books and recruited people with domain expertise.<p>If you remember his story he tried to buy Russian rockets, they didn&#x27;t take him seriously because he lacked the domain experience. So he was forced to take an even greater risk and build his own rocket. Doing something previously the province of only large nation states. Still he was able to pull it off.
hunter-2about 4 years ago
The comments here have taken a different turn from what I came here for.<p>Anyway, is there some relatively unknown startup that everyone thinks is crazy at the moment? Like Twitter of 2007? I remember blogging their demise back then.
kevinskiiabout 4 years ago
I can&#x27;t speak to Mighty&#x27;s potential, but this essay is quite good.<p>As one anecdote in support of its argument, I have an acquaintance who co-founded a startup about 10 years ago. Much like Dropbox&#x27;s early skeptics, I didn&#x27;t understand how this business solved any real problem that couldn&#x27;t be trivially addressed in a multitude of other ways.<p>I was puzzled as the business continued to grow and open offices around the world, and I was astounded when they were acquired for many multiples of the minimal VC investment that they eventually accepted.
评论 #27066728 未加载
luckydabout 4 years ago
The carnivore paradigm is a great example, Paul. It&#x27;s infeasible to diehard carnivores that one could live (and thrive) without animal protein. We evolved as humans on animal protein. Our deep addiction to this results in massive environmental damage using modern technologies to raise and hunt (obliterate) animal populations at scale- 77 billion land animals and 2.4 trillion fish annually. I&#x27;m betting on Impossible Foods, Beyond Meat, and all the new startups in the plant&#x2F;lab meat space!
bilaterabout 4 years ago
Great article. What most people are not taking into account with Mighty is that new ideas like this rarely stay the same...who knows what product&#x2F;use case it morphs into? Maybe the browser implementation takes off, maybe it pivots to an OS rather than just Chrome...maybe becomes a backup &#x2F; cross device solution. Maybe something that we haven&#x27;t even thought of yet becomes possible with new technologies like 5G coming on board. We don&#x27;t know.
评论 #27067430 未加载
michaelbuckbeeabout 4 years ago
I think most &quot;crazy&quot; ideas seem that way given the current constraints in that point in time and it&#x27;s the domain experts that see the changing landscape which will make them viable.<p>It&#x27;s hard to remember, but there was a time that YouTube seemed &quot;crazy&quot; as it was assumed that bandwidth costs would swamp the viability of any video startup.<p>See also: almost all the &quot;dumb&quot; early web startups that weren&#x27;t dumb, but mistimed the market (Webvan, ePets)
paraschopraabout 4 years ago
The issue is that domain experts often have crazy ideas outside their domain. Typical example is a technical expert or a scientist having a crazy business idea.
benp84about 4 years ago
These two parts seem contradictory:<p>&gt; &quot;Most implausible-sounding ideas are in fact bad and could be safely dismissed. But not when they&#x27;re proposed by reasonable domain experts.&quot;<p>&gt; &quot;The lowest form of all is to dismiss an idea because of who proposed it.&quot;<p>I feel like he&#x27;s prematurely dismissing the idea of <i>dismissing an idea based on who proposes it</i> because of who he&#x27;s imagining doing (proposing) it, if that makes sense.
srikuabout 4 years ago
I&#x27;m currently dealing with explaining why we should at least try and understand Stephen Wolfram&#x27;s &quot;a project to find the fundamental theory of physics&quot;.<p>It is a very unconventional view certainly and one which I suspect many &quot;reasonable&quot; experts from the field might term a crackpot idea. But Stephen Wolfram is an expert himself and so I suppose Paul Graham&#x27;s test stands.
cblconfederateabout 4 years ago
should be prefaced with &quot;within the context of american capitalism&quot;, because i don&#x27;t think such views on personal ego and taking credit apply universally. There were a lot more crazy ideas when experimental science wasn&#x27;t there to debunk them. And many science fields even today are lacking ideas, not methods, but not necessarily for fear of being ridiculed.
dvh1990about 4 years ago
&quot;Such ideas are not guaranteed to work. But they don&#x27;t have to be. They just have to be sufficiently good bets — to have sufficiently high expected value. And I think on average they do. I think if you bet on the entire set of implausible-sounding ideas proposed by reasonable domain experts, you&#x27;d end up net ahead.&quot;<p>That&#x27;s the VC business model in a nutshell
taytusabout 4 years ago
&gt;People will also attack new ideas when they have a vested interest in the old ones. It&#x27;s not surprising, for example, that some of Darwin&#x27;s harshest critics were churchmen.<p>Nah man, it&#x27;s because every time they’re asked about security they say “yes we did an audit no we won’t release the results”? I don’t know about you but I’d like to keep my passwords to myself
throwaway823882about 4 years ago
New Ideas aren&#x27;t crazy. Crazy Ideas are crazy. That&#x27;s why people say it won&#x27;t work, because it <i>sounds crazy</i>. It sounds crazy because the person proposing it hasn&#x27;t made a good enough case for it.<p>Getting people to agree with a new idea is about <i>salesmanship</i>. If people think your idea is crazy, you suck at sales. Coffee&#x27;s for closers.
boraoztuncabout 4 years ago
I wonder why Chrome&#x27;s &quot;Reading Mode&quot; is not activated in Paul Graham&#x27;s website. I really get used to read articles in Reader Mode, with the same style, background color, font size and without any other distracting elements of the page. His website font size is 13px, which is pretty small. So I copy+paste to Obsidian and read there.
ungzdabout 4 years ago
Domain experts may lie, they might be sure that idea will never work but still propose it in order to increase company valuation, get funding, etc.<p>Example: self-driving cars. Probably, experts that work in this field are confident that self-driving cars are impossible even 100 years in future, but working on self-driving cars gives them money.
doolsabout 4 years ago
The most important idea like this in the world right now is expounded in the book The Deficit Myth by Stephanie Kelton which everyone should read. MMT fits this article exactly except for the fact that PG says it doesn’t extend beyond “hard sciences”. It also extends to the dismal science
aa_memonabout 4 years ago
I believe the technology behind Mighty is amazing, the people involved are amazing, the experience for it&#x27;s users will be amazing.<p>I believe the underlying reason for HN&#x27;s reaction to Mighty has almost nothing to do with any of the above. To the contrary, most of us probably feel that Mighty will be a raging success. But we don&#x27;t actually like that at all. When I reflect on my own thoughts, the reasons my initial reaction is pessimistic are:<p>1. If Mighty makes badly designed&#x2F;architected apps &quot;fast&quot;, nobody will fix the underlying issues.<p>2. The internet will be amazing for the folks that can afford to pay $30-$50&#x2F;month and all others will have to live with a sub-par experience because of #1<p>3. Some other company will come along and try to subsidize Mighty for all those that couldn&#x27;t afford it but they&#x27;ll monetize by advertising and further personal data collection.<p>4. Further lack of control over core software on our personal computers.<p>I fear that one day I&#x27;ll visit a website with a message saying &quot;This website runs best using Mighty&quot;.<p>There were similar sentiments when RSS blogs started moving to medium. Medium is amazing! but at some point medium needed to introduce a 3 item limit.<p>More and more of the internet which a lot of us remember as this open thing that no one owns is being siloed into privately owned.
评论 #27066656 未加载
评论 #27066763 未加载
srckinase123about 4 years ago
The idea of using reasonable domain experts as a filter to implausible-sounding ideas seems obvious for hard-technology and scientific problems. But what about entrepreneurial ideas that provide a social service, such as Uber or Airbnb? Were the founders &quot;domain experts&quot;?
评论 #27063289 未加载
评论 #27063390 未加载
shawn-butlerabout 4 years ago
Thomas Kuhn. I feel sorry for the guy. His work is the basis of so much armchair worldview building about the modern world and is relevant to a cultural practice of science that died out 200 years ago.<p>I can&#x27;t help but roll my eyes whenever I hear anyone use the word paradigm shift anymore.
sjg007about 4 years ago
I bet this is built using.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;chromium.googlesource.com&#x2F;chromium&#x2F;src&#x2F;+&#x2F;master&#x2F;docs&#x2F;old_chromoting_build_instructions.md" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;chromium.googlesource.com&#x2F;chromium&#x2F;src&#x2F;+&#x2F;master&#x2F;docs...</a>
CraftingLinksabout 4 years ago
Is this about his stupid browser again? It&#x27;s not that the idea is &quot;crazy&quot;, people are dismissive because the idea is &quot;perverse&quot;. It has a perverse business aspect behind it, this world does not need ontop of the mess modern Internet has become.
archon810about 4 years ago
On a technical note, is there really no https on Paul&#x27;s site? The link is http, and changing it to https throws an certificate error <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;1rnsGnM" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;1rnsGnM</a>.
评论 #27108445 未加载
atldevabout 4 years ago
&gt; They also vacuum up the trail of crumbs that led to them, making our standards for new ideas impossibly high.<p>I enjoy this style of writing. Seemingly simple but packs a lot of meaning (like JoelOnSoftware back in the day).
Gravitylossabout 4 years ago
&quot;If someone I knew to be both a domain expert and a reasonable person proposed an idea that sounded preposterous&quot; - my reaction would be to ask: that&#x27;s unexpected to me, what is different?
lucideerabout 4 years ago
This entire article seems like some pretty obvious stuff that most people understand very well, wrapped in a veil of apparent profundity.<p>First of all: it makes one very large assumption from the beginning that is never mentioned: &quot;I, pg, can confidently identify a reasonable domain expert&quot;.<p>That&#x27;s basically a fallacy: this is the hardest thing to be sure of and Dunning Kruger applies heavily here (both for the apparent domain expert, and also for the person listening to their idea, who considers themselves such an excellent judge of the speaker&#x27;s expertise).<p>Beyond that, there&#x27;s nothing profound here: any &quot;average&quot; person, when listening to a person they trust (and &quot;trust&quot; here means they believe that this person is competent, i.e. is a &quot;reasonable domain expert&quot;), will heed their ideas, and be more likely to consider the &quot;crazy&quot; ones. Paul is not unique nor advanced in this regard.<p>The unstated problem is knowing whether you&#x27;re good at identifying experts.
woopwoopabout 4 years ago
&gt; Everyone is too conservative.<p>Interesting. Do VCs outperform the S&amp;P 500 in general?
peter_d_shermanabout 4 years ago
&gt;&quot;<i>Copernicus published the heliocentric model in 1532 -- but it wasn&#x27;t till the mid seventeenth century that the balance of scientific opinion shifted in its favor.</i>[4]&quot;
reddogabout 4 years ago
Isn’t this pretty much what Thomas Kuhn said in his Structures of Scientific Revolutions back in the 60s? At one time that was hailed as one of the most important books of the 20th century.
Nihmieabout 4 years ago
Everything Paul wrote about in this post resonated with me. He avoided any examples, and looking through these HN comments, it&#x27;s clear why. A lot of people assume that his experiences are specific, but no, there really is a culture of shooting down crazy new ideas.<p>I can think of a few examples of crazy ideas being dismissed. I remember seeing this post where someone was trying to figure out if it was possible to verify that a photo was either undoctored or else that someone went through a lot of trouble to hack the camera hardware of a phone. The post started off in the vein of, &quot;Here&#x27;s this idea, and even though it sounds crazy, I can&#x27;t convince myself that it&#x27;s a bad idea.&quot; The peanut gallery had all sorts of reasons that it was a bad idea -- I think my favorite reason was that it would be immoral to try to provide this capability. Paul&#x27;s essay suggests a few reasons that this crazy idea might have generated such a personal attack.<p>Crazy new ideas are uncomfortable. I&#x27;m reminded of &quot;Pitch Anything&quot; by Oren Klaff, which describes the &quot;croc brain&quot; that protects the higher functioning parts of our brain by trying to discard anything that is uncomfortable. A crazy new idea challenges our worldview, so it&#x27;s going to be uncomfortable.<p>There&#x27;s a class of ideas that engineers are comfortable with: incremental improvements. If there&#x27;s a framework in place to evaluate an idea, it doesn&#x27;t make people so uncomfortable. By extension, if an idea is non-incremental, meaning it&#x27;s a crazy new idea, then since it makes us uncomfortable, it should be rejected immediately.<p>I remember a conversation about the value of an idea. There&#x27;s the school of thought that ideas are worthless -- a monkey with a typewriter can hammer out ten ideas before their breakfast banana. Another viewpoint recognizes that good ideas are important starting points, but after that the only thing that matters is hard work.<p>My feeling is that crazy new ideas are more like a lottery ticket: probably worthless. I don&#x27;t know, maybe the peanut gallery is right. Since the lottery ticket is probably worthless, the easiest thing to do is to toss them all in the trash before checking them against the winning numbers.
评论 #27069727 未加载
xmeadowabout 4 years ago
I think the biggest problem of these statements is that you don&#x27;t hear much of terrible ideas which failed initally.
spondylabout 4 years ago
I think Mighty is a reasonable hotfix on the face of it. Having said that, if the question is &quot;How do we make the web less slow&quot;, the actual solution must be reducing inefficiencies in the web apps themselves. Mighty seems like the equivalent of saying your room is tidy because you&#x27;ve shoved all of your clothes in the wardrobe. It&#x27;ll work but what happens when we need a Mighty for Mighty or something like that.
gman83about 4 years ago
I guess because I think that Hyperloop is a really dumb idea I must be extremely envious. This smells like a way to justify ignoring difficult criticism. The critics are envious, they&#x27;re trying to look sophisticated, they&#x27;re not real domain experts, etc.
评论 #27066099 未加载
评论 #27062849 未加载
评论 #27064858 未加载
评论 #27067613 未加载
mikesabbaghabout 4 years ago
The problem with education is that u r always taught to look for the right answer someone else discovered long time ago. Coming up with crazy ideas means u were either a bad student, or u have a post-doctoral education. It is hard for anyone in the middle to come with crazy ideas (unless u worked with someone crazy coming up with crazy ideas requires a certain training or exposure, it is very difficult to learn on ur own
toshabout 4 years ago
&gt; Having new ideas is a lonely business
mgh2about 4 years ago
Although true, there is a general anti-religious tone here that helps feed into HN culture. Thank you Paul.
snarkypixelabout 4 years ago
Biggest mind shift: Instead of asking why it wouldn&#x27;t work, ask what would it take for it to work
notananthemabout 4 years ago
As someone who writes notebooks full of completely new, bad ideas, this comes naturally to many of us
umutisikabout 4 years ago
The essay seems to be about startups. It could use more examples to illustrate the point.
aranchelkabout 4 years ago
Taking this article at face value, the idea Graham is talking about, already has a name: jootsing (jumping out of the system) coined by Douglas Hofstadter. I’m familiar with it from Daniel Dennett’s excellent book Intuition Pumps.<p>A feature of ground breaking ideas is they contradict established wisdom, but that’s also a feature of most awful ones. The latter greatly outnumber the former. For every brilliant mind contradicting and redefining a discipline there are a multitude of clueless ones who lack basic knowledge of that discipline producing total crap. Think Einstein vs thousands of crackpots who don’t understand kinetic energy and momentum are not the same thing.<p>For this reason Dennett points out that the presence of jootsing is not a valuable metric to assess an idea. He goes on to say as it’s unhelpful advice to give to someone attempting to produce a valuable concept. He compares it to teaching someone how to invest by saying “buy low, sell high”. Yes this is a feature of a successful investor, but in and of itself, quite unhelpful.<p>Unfortunately, saying “my ideas jootses” isn’t saying much.
anonytraryabout 4 years ago
&gt; If the person proposing the idea is reasonable, then they know how implausible it sounds. And yet they&#x27;re proposing it anyway. That suggests they know something you don&#x27;t. And if they have deep domain expertise, that&#x27;s probably the source of it.<p>I am not an expert, but this sounds related to Gell-Mann Amnesia. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.epsilontheory.com&#x2F;gell-mann-amnesia&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.epsilontheory.com&#x2F;gell-mann-amnesia&#x2F;</a><p>If a domain expert suggests a radical idea, by mere statistics, I should treat that radical suggestion with higher confidence than if a non-expert suggested the same idea. For example, a theoretical physicist talking about a flat earth in the context of 2D quantum gravity compared to a fanatic talking about how the earth is flat on YouTube. Of course, I&#x27;m not going to immediately dismiss Lee Smolin, but I might dismiss a random YouTuber talking about it because they are not a domain expert. This, I believe is at least somewhat related to Gell-Mann Amnesia, no?
sjg007about 4 years ago
Whatever Might is or becomes, I am sure it will have an app store.
npsimonsabout 4 years ago
&gt; When the average person proposes an implausible-sounding idea, its implausibility is evidence of their incompetence.<p>I mean, this is basically QAnon, antivaxxers, creationists and trickle-down economists in a nutshell. That said . . .<p>&gt; Are they mistaken, or are you? One of you has to be.<p>By default I assume I&#x27;m in the wrong. There&#x27;s just so many domains of knowledge, the probability of me having enough depth of even more than a handful is highly unlikely. The hard part is distinguishing those who are domain experts, and those who are not, when you are not a domain expert.<p>&gt; If you&#x27;re the one who&#x27;s mistaken, that would be good to know, because it means there&#x27;s a hole in your model of the world.<p>And I <i>love</i> viewing everything as a mental model, because, well, it is, plus models are plastic: they can be changed. Asimov&#x27;s &quot;Relativity of Wrong&quot; comes to mind.
kstenerudabout 4 years ago
The thing is, most crazy new ideas are just that: crazy. For every great new invention there is the other 99.999% of bunk or snake oil.<p>It&#x27;s very difficult to differentiate between an innovative idea and claptrap. Genius is difficult to recognise because it takes a genius to develop the idea in the first place.
评论 #27064425 未加载
gourneauabout 4 years ago
Any recommendations for books about how new ideas happen?
peter_retiefabout 4 years ago
I wish somebody would take my wild ideas seriously.
评论 #27076619 未加载
demygaleabout 4 years ago
Does Thiel count as reasonable?
andaiabout 4 years ago
Don&#x27;t scroll down.
heipeiabout 4 years ago
Let&#x27;s try something fun and imagine Mighty (and similar RBI services) were the only browsers available when finally Google, Microsoft and Mozilla launch their own browsers. Imagine the headlines:<p>&quot;Run your own browser for free, forever, without having to sign up or put in your credit card!&quot;<p>&quot;Run your own browser, even when your network connectivity is bad!&quot; -<p>&quot;Run your own browser to access resources on your corporate intranet that are not available on the Internet&quot;.<p>&quot;Run your own browser, you stay in charge of your data, login credentials and browsing history!&quot;<p>&quot;Run your own browser which efficiently caches resources locally so you only have to download them once instead of a constant 4K video stream&quot;.
ThomPeteabout 4 years ago
Getting ideas is easy. Getting ideas other people want to spend money or time on is something quite different.<p>Even if you get an amazing idea, the chances of it being a good business are small. In fact, some of the best businesses didn’t start out with good ideas. Instead, they started out being considered stupid, wrong, childish, irrational, useless, too easy, too hard, impossible, unethical, unsustainable and we could go on.<p>If you get an idea that turns out to be a great business, chances are that others would have told you it’s a bad idea you might even yourself at times think it’s a bad idea and almost give up.<p>The difference between an idea that looks to be a complete failure and one that is wildly successful is often a matter of months. On top of that, most businesses fail even if you have a stellar team and for many not-so-obvious reasons (more about that in the next essay) It’s just hard to know if your idea is great or not or if it just sounds great. So how do you make sure your idea even has a chance of making it? Having worked with hundreds of startups, investors, and founders over the years, we decided to put together a list of principles that can be used to come up with ideas that others want to pay for.<p>1. There are 3 categories of ideas that potentially could be turned into a business.<p>Ideas for a solution to a problem<p>Ideas for fulfilling a need<p>Ideas that create new demand.<p>The safest business ideas are solutions to problems. The world is filled with problems. Finding the right problem to solve is often harder than the actual solution. The questions become more important than the answer. The next safest business idea category fulfills an existing need but in a better&#x2F;cheaper way. Whether a dating service, an email client or a new type of insurance. Finding an underserved market is normally the way in. The riskiest, but potentially most fruitful of them all are ideas that create new demand. These are products or services no one knew they needed before they tried them. Computer games, songs, movies, fart apps, and most social networks belong to this group. Make sure you know which category you are in.<p>2. Questions you can ask yourself or others: “What problem in your industry would you pay for someone to solve?” “What annoys me that I would be ready to pay for?” “What in my life feels like it could be better?” “What are my friends complaining about?” “What are my friends excited about?” “What has changed over the last 3–5 years?” Ask questions that are open-ended and don’t come with an obvious solution.<p>3. Once you’ve found an idea to pursue ask yourself: “Are there any existing solutions out there?” “How big is the problem&#x2F;need?” “Why hasn’t this been solved so far?” “What kind of problem&#x2F;need is it? (i.e. Legislative, technical, financial, etc)” “Do I have the skills or knowledge or intuition or perseverance to pursue this?” Keep asking questions and don’t be afraid of the answer. The right questions asked today can save you months or years of work down a path that leads nowhere.<p>4. Define your competitors much more broadly. You will often be asked, “Are there other companies out there doing what you are doing?” The answer most of the time will be yes. If you don’t find anyone, you most likely aren’t defining competitors wide enough. Oftentimes competitors aren’t doing exactly what you are doing but are perceived by customers as if they were. If you define competition too narrow you risk missing what might be inhibiting your growth. If you define too wide then you might find potential market places you weren’t even thinking about.<p>5. Don’t be afraid of sharing your ideas with others. In the beginning, most great ideas don’t look different than bad ones. Chances are that even if your idea turns out to be a unicorn, no one will notice. In fact, if you are on to something, chances are you will often have to pay people to work on it for you. Reversely if you get an idea that sounds great and everyone loves it, chances are it most likely already exists or it just that, a great idea, not a great business. So unless you’ve found the cure for cancer and then probably instead should patent it, don’t be afraid to share ideas.<p>6. Fight for your ideas. Ideas are like newborn babies. Extremely fragile in the beginning but with great care and nurturing they can turn into amazing mature businesses. Make sure you give your idea enough time to grow but not enough to turn into a bad teenager.<p>7. Choose ideas that keep you motivated. Many early-stage startup founders make the mistake of just looking for a good idea rather than something they care about. Most ideas aren’t going to work out, so for most of us, a higher goal is needed. Something that makes you want this idea to exist and be successful. Something to keep us going when thing’s are looking the least likely to succeed. A lot can be done with perseverance and grit, make sure your idea is worth it. There is a lot more to this than what we’ve covered here but as you can see there is a lot more going into ideas than just getting them. So make sure you’ve spent enough time on your idea.
gustavo-fringabout 4 years ago
Graham&#x27;s obviously inspired by some Kuhnian paradigms here, but in Grahamiam fashion, he doesn&#x27;t cite anything to back it up.<p>What I find interesting where he calls most people conservative is how when I&#x27;m discussing VCs, YC, etc with non SV people is we talk about how conservative they are. YC&#x27;s business model for years was predicated on finding talent (kids) that was undervalued, underpaying them (10k was the initial payouts?), getting them to pack up and move to super-expensive monocultural SV like everyone else, and then when they made bukku money, lose interest in improving the service (Reddit, Dropbox). There&#x27;s nothing original there, it&#x27;s the business model of carpetbaggers and robber barons. How boring.<p>I often feel like Jonah Hill in Moneyball, a pariah for pointing out how ancient VC thinking is. Or maybe I just imagine it. Well, it is my experience that true deep domain knowledge can only come from years of insights. People without years of experience will be lacking maturity and&#x2F;or won&#x27;t have time to even consider those insights. Usually people who mainly care about money, influence &quot;becoming powerful&quot; (Graham&#x27;s words about his protege, not mine) will jump at whatever shortcut they can take instead of spending the card work necessary for learning these deep insights PG is interested in.<p>With all due respect, Coinbase didn&#x27;t require deep insight. It was the equivalent of &quot;You like money, too?&quot; . PG, you should stop the contrarian persecuted intellectual look. You&#x27;re not the little guy anymore, haven&#x27;t been for 2 decades.
评论 #27062875 未加载
评论 #27063014 未加载
评论 #27062949 未加载
评论 #27063603 未加载
评论 #27063730 未加载
评论 #27062406 未加载
ANarrativeApeabout 4 years ago
There&#x27;s more than one crazy new idea floating around, checkout cituzenshareholders.com reimagining of capitalism and their (ok, our) crazy, yet feasible, plan to democratize corporate governance. With $40 trillion in shares owned thru collective investments Larry Fink&#x27;s wish for a new form of shareholder engagement will come true!
failwhalesharkabout 4 years ago
In 2013, I mentioned to a recruiter that Go would be huge by 2015-2016, and the jagoff argued with me from their zero domain expertise. I told them to piss off and never contact me again because they signaled they were stupid, ignorant, and unable to listen.. which means I had no use for them and they were a liability.
anotha1about 4 years ago
Looks like pg discovered consensus vs non-consensus ideas[1], good for him.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;entrepreneurship-at-work&#x2F;non-consensus-based-entrepreneurship-b5d4b370b645" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;entrepreneurship-at-work&#x2F;non-consensus-ba...</a>
antipaulineabout 4 years ago
Why are you all upvoting this shit?<p>Just because Paul Graham wrote it, doesn&#x27;t mean it&#x27;s worth reading. Usually the opposite, in fact.<p>You people need to lay off the PG cultism. Stop worshipping every word he writes just because you idolize his riches, or want to be him, or whatever.
评论 #27062569 未加载
评论 #27064409 未加载
评论 #27062394 未加载
评论 #27062565 未加载
评论 #27063358 未加载
grodesabout 4 years ago
can the font size be smaller? please
评论 #27062687 未加载
f430about 4 years ago
Paul&#x27;s writing inspired me to start a porn studio. Thank you Paul!
n00bdudeabout 4 years ago
PG posts hit HN like The Force
bruhhhabout 4 years ago
Here&#x27;s a crazy idea for you: use SSL on your website!!
ojbyrneabout 4 years ago
Should probably credit Thomas Kuhn: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_Structure_of_Scientific_...</a>
评论 #27064136 未加载
tutfbhufabout 4 years ago
Is it possible to add a HN filter (hide) all paulgraham.com posts? I&#x27;m not interested in his posts and they pop up very often on HN.
评论 #27067964 未加载
评论 #27067349 未加载
swayvilabout 4 years ago
From the footnotes<p>&gt;3] This is one reason people with a touch of Asperger&#x27;s may have an advantage in discovering new ideas. They&#x27;re always flying on instruments<p>On the contrary, it is everybody else who is flying on instruments. The sperg sees straight.
评论 #27061871 未加载
waxmanabout 4 years ago
A practical application of this perspective, and one that has a lot of virtues is:<p>When evaluating a crazy new idea (particularly something like a product or business), don&#x27;t bother asking &quot;will this work?&quot; because no one truly knows, but rather ask: &quot;if this does work, then what are the implications?&quot;<p>Pg has quite a track record here by being an early investor in textbook crazy new ideas like Airbnb, Coinbase, etc. &quot;Will this replace a chunk of the hotel market? Unclear, but if it does, it will be a huge and valuable business.&quot;<p>For folks talking about Mighty, its through this lens that pg is thinking about it. &quot;Will it work? Is it better than alternatives? Who knows... But if the vision does pan out, I think it&#x27;s more obvious to see how this could be a big and important business.&quot;