This is why having a safety net and resources to try again is so powerful. Given enough chances you will make it, big. That means the #1 factor in success is the number of chances you get to fail and try again, not necessarily how inherently good you are. I try to remind myself of this often. I have been given so many chances, and I took them.
This always sounded intuitively correct to me, but looking back over the past two decades basically all of the successful entrepreneurs and business owners I know didn’t come from families with a lot of resources and didn’t have much of a safety net. They just went all in on their goals when they were young and had many years ahead of them to start over if it all went wrong.
Contrast this with some of the people I grew up who came from wealthy families: A lot of their parents pushed them toward entrepreneurship and funded their ventures, but to date I can only think of one business from this cluster of friends that went anywhere. When you come from such resources and wealth that you don’t need to succeed and you can drop the business as soon as it becomes difficult, it’s a different situation.
I don’t know exactly what to make of this, other than to remind myself to keep pushing through the difficult times for things I really want even when I could fall back to an easy path and give up.
Who are you thinking of? Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, Musk all came from wealthy families. They all had the safety net of their family wealth if their business didn’t work out. Even someone who had parents to pay their student loans is relatively privileged, not everyone starts their 20’s debt-free and able to take financial risks.
I've seen quite a few of these funded entrepreneur-lifestyle kids now; I've worked (briefly) with many of their companies. Many of them are making enough of a real go at it such that I can't tell them from others, but quite a few don't know enough about how a default alive business works and deliver a DoA even when the core idea or a short pivot works and has traction - these guys need so much better PMF to succeed.
The best businesses I've seen parents find for their children are lettings agents (urgh) and basic manufacturing (last mile door assembly etc.). You can get the business model in a six month course, the staff are minimum wage, the product is high margin. If your parents buy the building you are so close to default alive its a joke. Grow the business, flip it, and try the big idea.
Then let’s control for that. Among people with a decent safety net, can we correlate eventual success with number of tries?
The answer seems self evident, but idk for sure, and I would like to know the Gini coefficient of successes vs failures among safety netters be that of non-safety netters. Wouldn’t we expect the successes within the safety net to be massively larger on average than those of the non-safety netters, given that a safety net affords you so many more swings to take? Your comment suggests that this is not the case, driven by the selection/survivor effect within non-safety net
I wouldn't assume size of success is correlated with "having success or not." It's notoriously hard to predict what business ideas will succeed at all, let alone be mega-billion-success-stories. Many things could've gone differently leading to Bezos being a ten- or hundred-millionaire vs a multi-billionaire even in worlds where Amazon was successful. AWS, for instance, was not in the original plan.
I think the strongest correlations would be between:
"has safety net" and "has success" - one major factor here is not having a poverty mentality that would lead to panicking and quitting early
as well as between "has safety net" and "takes multiple swings if no initial success", for the direct reason of "can afford to do so."
In a thread about survivor bias, and you fall for the same trap. How many people coming from wealthy background end up failing?
Take Bill Gates, his father cofounded a law firm, and his mother was a board members of several firms. That is a very wealthy background, but not outrageously so. How many people of the same level of wealth became successful businesspeople? It's said that his mom being on the same board as IBM's CEO at the time was a more instrumental factor to his eventual success than his family's wealth, and his own effort of course.
> It's said that his mom being on the same board as IBM's CEO at the time was a more instrumental factor to his eventual success than his family's wealth, and his own effort of course.
This sounds a lot like "his family's wealth was a more instrumental factor than his family's wealth" since "being on a board" is pretty rarified air. It's not Gates-himself-level wealthy, but what percentile is that? 90th? 95th? 99th?
Bezos’s mom was his first investor, giving him $300K.
Then he also had connections to millionaires through his family
Bill Gates’ mother, Mary Gates, was instrumental in securing Microsoft's first major deal with IBM through her connections. His family was wealthy and provided connections and support
What about Replit? Two guys in a coffee shop in Jordan, you cannot be much further from Silicon Valley. They got turned down four times from YC and decided never to try again. But pg fell in love with the startup and urged him to try again. Then during the interview one of them got into a heated argument with Michael Siebel and thought for sure he had failed.
Yet he got in without a wealthy family and an American Ivy League degree. There are lots of other examples, I can even think of a one in Michigan.
Sure, but if Bill Gates was a drug addict with no software, there would have been no deal and he certainly wouldn't have been successful.
Whenever I see the topic of success, people LOVE to talk about 'survivorship bias' as a way to somehow discredit the person that is successful and also give an excuse as to why they might not be successful.
It's pretty destructive in a community that's supposed to be about startups and building businesses. This is why I originally came here years ago, but it seems like the mindset has shifted to anti-capitalist group think.
Good to share, but n=1 I suppose. For me (also n=1) it's the opposite in my circle. The ones without resources never went anywhere and reproduced their parents' class. The ones with resources that went into entrepreneurship (and had the possibility of failing and still being fine) are the most successful.
Agreed on your final point though! Tenacity probably is the biggest driver.
Peter used to say, that every successful company could look back at a defining moment early on, where they would have died had it not been for the courage, and the tenacity, and maybe the insanity of one visionary person who put it all on the line, even though it seemed like a huge mistake at the time.
A moment where all the metrics and the numbers didn't mean anything.
It was all about the emotion. It was about belief, rational or irrational.
The whole idea of succeeding by “grit” makes way too many people too idealistic and unrealistic.
Don’t get me wrong, Peter Drucker (hopefully that’s the Peter you are referring to) had some great actionable advice. But believing in yourself and having grit is about as banal as “thoughts and prayers”
You know what? This is indeed where courage, tenacity, and risk-taking make a difference.
But what makes the difference in whether or not we hear about it is pure luck and survivor bias.
If their luck was just right that with all that push in the right time the deal came through or the product sold, then we hear about what a great success it was, and how important was their grit.
And many smart determined people with all the courage, tenacity, and risk-taking in the world have also taken the big risk, but dice did not roll their way, or the hill was just so steep it didn't work, so we hear nothing of them. And their number likely vastly exceeds the few for whom it did work.
> looking back over the past two decades basically all of the successful entrepreneurs and business owners I know didn’t come from families with a lot of resources and didn’t have much of a safety net
There’s probably some truthyness to this but it doesn’t account for survivorship bias. And there’s a baseline amount of resources necessary to take a risk and be able to try again (e.g., good luck taking a risk when preoccupied by [lack of] health, housing, food).
I’d expect it to stratify based on the kind of business.
Typical small businesses (plumbing, HVAC, restaurants, convenience stores) I’d expect to come from poorer families. These businesses are a potential avenue to success without traditional credentials, and they’re not the sort of thing somebody is likely to start as a passion.
From wealthy families, I’d expect vanity businesses. There wouldn’t be as much motivation for the annoying aspects of a real business. And anyone who is interested in business can probably get a nice start in something their family owns or has a major stake in.
Moonshot companies I’d expect to come from the upper middle class, children of doctors and such. Not fabulously wealthy, so the potential for making millions can still be a big motivator. But comfortable enough to get advanced schooling and be willing to aim big with a chance of failure, rather than going for something mundane you know is always in demand, like fixing pipes.
Off the top of my head, Gates, Page, and Zuckerberg all fit that mold.
Would be interesting to run the priors on this and say what is the probability of startup success given "rich" "middle class" and "poor".
Otherwise maybe more poor people try startups so success will be biased towards them (rich will take over daddy or mommy business... maybe take a shot at a startup for fun but say meh lets try the business, plus there are waaaaay fewer rich).
Or to put it another way: Most people who live >100 are also from modest backgrounds too. As are olympic gold winners. Us paupers are the best!
you can extend that to all Silicon Valley and the US in general.
It has one of the weakest social security systems. Not even proper healthcare is guaranteed. Yet it out innovates all of Europe, Canada, Australia, other places that have incredible social "safety nets".
I agree with the other commenter: safety nets and multiple tries are always good to have, but persistence and grit are even more important, and these come more from necessity.
> Yet it out innovates all of Europe, Canada, Australia, other places that have incredible social "safety nets".
Probability: highly unlikely.
Speaking for Europe, I see a lot of silent innovation. No press, no LinkedIn posts, not an article on their website. There are a lot of US firms that shop in Europe for high tech. (I know of instances were the US company buys the IP from the EU supplier + take public credit for it + forbids the supplier for showcasing their success in public.)
What is different is:
1) the amount of money available in the US. The US enjoyed a very beneficial position post-WOII, enabling them to run high deficits.
2) the US has a positive attitude to entrepreneurship. You are not a failure when your company goes bankrupt, you learn from it and you go-go-go.
EU countries also have very high tax rates, which feels like the community is the primary beneficiary of your business, not you the entrepreneur. This alone severely reduces the financial incentive of starting a business. There's also some weird cultural stigma in the EU's more socialist countries (like France), where the system is way more comfortable for you as an employee rather than a risk taker. Let's call a spade a spade.
The way you say it, it sounds like the EU shouldn’t have any companies at all, but that is not true. In fact, the EU is very good at boring tech, which is the reason why the US is imposing high tariffs.
Most of the US graduates have their degree and a network to fall back on. It's nice to have actual money in the bank, but it can also be acceptable to have a high chance of getting a rewarding job if the moonshot doesn't work.
In other words, human capital.
Most of the entrepreneurs I meet are not going to be homeless if things don't work out. They'll be employed.
Exactly this many also have parents who can help subsidize them, stay on their parents health insurance until they are 26 and worse case move back home. This isn’t just the privilege rich, this can also be your mid to mid upper income couple who can help their kids out.
Yep, and most of these fallbacks are insurance-like: you can always say you never asked your parents for anything. Like me. Thing worked out, so I didn't need their money. But if they hadn't, I would have a place to sleep and eat.
"But if they hadn't, I would have a place to sleep and eat."
Forgive me for asking, but (if it's acceptable to reduce it to that) isn't joining the army or something gets one covered? The army service would come with the added bonus of not letting you go soft in perseverance and risk taking areas.
In some areas and for some people, Medicaid probably does count as proper healthcare. But it certainly doesn't for other people / other places. Imagine there being one doctor within a multi-million person metro area who takes Medicaid for some sub-specialty. 90 minutes away from you by car. And you don't have a car. This is the reality for millions of Medicaid recipients, including ones I know personally in Chicago.
Not Medicaid, subsidized ACA. I know a lot of young healthy people that just take the chance of not having health care. Worse case you can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip if you have to go the emergency room.
I don’t think my older (step)son has had insurance since he got off our plan at 26 over two years ago.
Sure, although in some areas healthcare is effectively unavailable to Medicaid plan members because providers have stopped accepting those patients. Being insured doesn't mean much if you can't schedule an appointment.
Every single western "entrepreneur" who starts making a little more than 100k/year likes to tell itself this story.
Did you have any (real, not GenZ) mental or physical disability?
Did you have a house to come back to every day? Did you have a hot meal waiting for you whenever you wanted?
Did you have a community that supported you through your business?
Did you have a legal structure around you that allowed you not to worry about getting kidnapped/killed? A structure that enforces getting paid after you've earned your money?
98% of what you have was given.
I do agree, however, that a lot of people don't even bother to put in the remaining 2%.
“Can you start a business without $10m of family capital” is a societal question.
“Can you start a business on an empty stomach without a roof over your head” is not the same debate. A roof over your head is a prerequisite to almost everything else in life - starting a business is WAY down the list. Better to have societies work to provide food and roofs - which they do, with varying degrees of success.
People without those things cannot play the lottery as many times as those who have them. They might not even get to play it once.
If everyone around you has all of those basic human needs met, you are the exception.
But of course people don't like to hear this, because their whole meritocracy myth (which has always been trash) comes falling down and they might be forced to admit that, please excuse me for making this outrageous statement, ... you're just an average person with slightly better luck than others.
(It is true, however, that "luck" compounds through your life and even more through generations, though. But that even detracts from the meritocracy myth even more, as the family you're born in greatly defines what you'll achieve.)
Becoming an entrepreneur happens most of the times merely for advancing one's personal financial success. But, another side of it, which doesn't usually get attention, is that you become a beneficial factor for the society at large, because you are assumed to be doing something good and appreciated by others to earn that money. (Otherwise, earning money without being willingly paid, would make you just a criminal). You are right, this "compounds through your life and even more through generations". Especially through generations. This is how the prosperous societies got here - people doing all sorts of things that led to prosperity. If you don't not live in a society like that, then your business should be building a society first. Put your brick in the wall.
It also means that, unless the state of the environment you're in has some "force majeure" as a cause, then the people that were before you haven't done that of a good job building one either. That's not an individual failure, that's generations of failure, don't you think?
And lastly, if the environment you described is the one you're residing in, that means you're far removed from that of the entrepreneur's (you're casting judgement on) and from his/her stance. How can that lead to a caracter judgement worth anything?
I don't think anyone believes the idea of meritocracy applies to starving homeless slaves.
Luck is often the deciding factor in meritocracy, but we also make our own luck. You can have all the privleges in the world and still end up as a failson, it happens all the time.
What’s even funnier when I hear that my thought is “congratulations I guess??”. They are now making less than an average mid level developer doing CRUD enterprise dev 3 years out of school in any major metro area in the US.
That’s not even considering that the intern I mentored in 2021 is now making in the low $200s as an SA at BigTech at 25.
The key ingredient is the courage to try, not the safety net. Countries lauded for their strong safety nets are not overflowing with people taking ambitious risks. Often quite the opposite; the strong safety net reflects a cultural aversion to risk.
People with the courage to try don’t need a safety net to do it. In practice they seem to be almost inversely correlated.
An important aspect not mentioned is feeling like you will be adequately rewarded if your calculated risks pay off. This seems to be more pertinent than safety nets in practice.
It's like a baseball game. Most people are benched their whole lives. They never get a chance at the plate. More privileged people with a lucky combination of the right family, the right education, the right timing, and the right opportunity get an at-bat, and they'll either strike out, or hit the ball. A few very lucky people will get to stand at the plate maybe once or twice more.
The wealthy get infinite at-bats. They get to stand at the plate for however long they want, and swing and swing until they get their home run. I worked with a founder like this. He would always talk about his business's humble beginnings, starting from a garage and so on--you know the story. What he would neglect to admit was this was like his 7th try. Every time he failed, he'd just chill on his family's couch, dreaming up his next startup idea.
I think it was Outliers (Malcolm Gladwell) that talked about a similar concept as well. Ignoring the 10k hour thing, it also talks abut small compounding advantages that later add up to more opportunity (for those that take it).
To go with the sports analogy, (paraphrasing, been awhile since I read it) it mentions how birth date coinciding with the youth sport season was a strong determiner of success at that sport because being ~11 months older in the same age group meant they were bigger faster more experienced and would be played more, compounding increases in skill.
There was also a similar concept floating around about darts, where the poor get maybe one dart to throw, middle class a few and wealthier get many. But I can't remember where I saw or read that
This is not true. No matter how many different teams I try out for, I as a 51 year old short male with a limp will never be a star basketball player or ever make it to even the D leagues.
There are plenty of people who tried repeatedly to “succeed” in their own company and failed. Let’s say I did try to start my own company at 22 10x and spent 3 years at each one. I’m now 52 and would have been better off just working those 30 years and saving and investing with a lot less stress
See my other comment about being able to create a product and not having a go to market strategy or sales is like thinking just because I can dribble doesn’t mean I would succeed in the NBA.
I think the level of success one wants also require having a check for delusion and realism. If a "51 year old short limp" thinks they are going to be a star basketball player, they are delusional and no longer realistic.
How many people right here on HN have you seen over the years who built something and had no idea about marketing or a go to market strategy or knew anything about sales?
That’s the equivalent of a 51 year old with a limp not being self aware enough to know that I don’t have the skills to be a basketball player just because I can dribble.
If your energy is finite (which is normally the case), the effect may also depend on the energy per shot you spend. A birdshot allows you to hit great many possible targets, but only very weakly. A buckshot hits fewer targets, but packs a bit more punch. A FMJ bullet shot from a sniper rifle allows you to hit an exact target with a great force, but you have to choose carefully.
What worked for me best was looking around a lot, identifying a few worthy targets, and aiming well.
That sounds good, but with a safety net, are you really going to be hungry enough to make sure your one shot at getting out of the ghetto doesn't fail? The entrepreneur that says to themselves, if this doesn't work, I'll just ask mom for another $300k at St Barts over Christmas doesn't sound like the one sleeping under the desk at the office to get the demo ready for TechCrunch Disrupt. Or maybe they are (to prove daddy wrong). The human condition contains multitudes.
My wife and I are starting to test this theory. We are putting our kid in an expensive school, then starting a business to support our lifestyle. If we fail, our kid’ll have to go to a cheaper school and we’d have lost a few years of school fees. If we succeed, yay.
By the time, our are faced with the choice, our kid will be embedded in school so ripping them out of it is going to be a tough choice.
So, yeah, we’re essentially burning our boats and fighting to survive.
Don't live above your means because an unexpected event is likely to happen. Plus creating a situation where all peers are rich and only your kid is not doesn't open the doors to future success compared to if they were at their peers lifestyle level.
We grappled with this too but in the end, our decision was influenced by our parents choosing to live beyond their means to put us through good schools and college. If they could grit their teeth and sacrifice for us, we can do the same for the next generation.
Our choice us somewhat made easier because we didn’t like any of the schools near us except this one. The others were focused on exams/results and were larger in size so felt more “corporate”.
This is definitely not true. How many people for instance can go into journalism and do unpaid internships without family support?
The entire idea of most entrepreneurs pulling themselves up by their bootstraps in tech is a myth. Out of all of major tech companies now, how many of the founders came from disadvantaged backgrounds?
Safety net and resources correlates heavily in almost all aspects of your life, having a better life helps immensely in any project you do in your life, including entrepreneurship
I strongly disagree with the author. The mindset they described somewhat reminds me of body positivity—excess weight is not good for your health, accepting it through a mental shift is a bad advice.
Here is my personal advice to whoever reads this comment. Ignore everything they say on the internet. Do what works best for you. Trust your intuition. Set bold goals. Always learn and strive to become better in everything you do.
If you failed an interview, it’s perfectly ok to be disappointed. Spend a day calling your own self names. It’s normal! The very next day analyze why you failed, see where you need to improve. Rinse and repeat. This will get you whatever the hell you want in this life.
I think you missed the point, he doesn't disagree with your points at all, he's just pointing out that you shouldn't stress yourself out thinking you have to win them all when actually 1 is often all you need.
The “one that works out” can also give you a misrepresentation of how the world works and a false sense of how lucky one should expect to be over a long period of time.
At an earlier point in my life, I had been applying to many well-known big tech companies right out of school (not a top school either). I never got a reply from any of them so I ended up accepting a local job with a non-tech company after months of searching.
But I didn’t give up my hopes and kept applying to big tech, and while I did manage to get the occasional interview with some mediocre companies or the random startup, I also miserably failed all of them too.
At some point during my long period of despair at never getting a better job, my very top pick (and arguably one of the best tech companies in the world at the time) reached out to me. Even more miraculously, I somehow passed their interview (the only tech interview I passed in the prior year) and accepted a job there.
I really enjoyed working there. Some of the best years of my life. And my performance reviews were great too, so the imposter syndrome from having failed so many tech job interviews sort of faded into the background. But after a while, perhaps due to the “hedonic treadmill” mentality, I thought I could do better. So I left to join a startup.
Well, the startup failed, as startups tend to do, but what I didn’t expect and what caught me off guard was that I was now back in the same situation I was in right after graduating from college. Don’t get me wrong—having “the name” on my resume now meant I could get at least one chance at an interview about anywhere. But much like the first round that I tried to forget about, I once again failed all the interviews.
Unfortunately, this second time around never procured a “get out of jail free” card.
So I guess my lesson is: 1) there’s a lot of luck involved in these things, 2) if life gives you a winning lottery ticket at some point, don’t throw it away for the chance to win an even bigger lottery, and 3) that famous saying about “the only actions regretted are those not taken” is absolutely, totally wrong—almost all of my regrets in life relate to taking some action I shouldn’t have rather than inaction.
Well with the style of tech interviews we have, luck is definitely involved. Some questions are simply my style (I like graphs and dynamic programming for example), and I’m lucky if the interviewer happens to choose these. But I don’t like for example two pointers problems.
And also I’ve long ago dissociated my tech interview performance with my actual performance indicated by performance reviews.
A lot of people experienced that during the 2020 boom. The lucky break wasn't a lucky break it was just a huge hiring boom. Once that's over the status quo returns.
Corollary: Choosing _not_ to do something is as much an action as choosing _to_ do something. Which shines a bright light on the meaninglessness of the phrase “the only actions regretted are those not taken”.
There's also the option of choosing to not commit to either action. One stays in the status quo without choosing it, but since agency is negatively correlated with regret and no agency was used, the 'choosing not to do something' option probably has a higher chance of being regretted.
To land at the the author's difficulty level, you need to not have chronic life-shifting catastrophes. That is, the sort of challenges that slot your life in a place where the long reaches are to keep housing and hopefully have food for the kids.
I started out where the author was. Well, roughly. +Kids, -Secondary edu. I could and did rise above that. And above 3 economy shifts that each reset my biz to zero.
I did not rise above my spouse being swapped for an adult with profound psych issues. I took on the single dad and caregiver roles well enough.
However, I could not overcome the daily sabotage of, well, everything. It's like a TV trope where you are shackled to your worst enemy. But you have to keep them safe and your loved ones safe from them.
It's tough to maintain a job schedule when the police frequently call you during the workday (w and w/o CPS). Or when your transpo is stolen and can't be replaced.
In short, it's particular tough to pretend to be stable. Eventually there are no bridges left to burn.
Unfortunately, the "one" which accepts you, is no guarantee of it being the one which "works out" (in the short or long term). My experience is now 4x "found one that ultimately doesn't work out" (each lasting 2 to 3 years).
I'm now taking time out to try to figure out how to escape the confines of the career path I've taken to find something different.
Open to suggestions of entirely different careers that I could switch to that might have higher odds of not being toxic rat-races full of people telling lies and bullshit just to survive.
But broader experience suggests the world of work just sucks these days (and yes, it's these days - our parent's generation had a brief period of doing 9-to-5 jobs which paid well enough to afford homes, have families and social lives and holidays. We don't get that now.). No wonder large numbers of my generation are dropping out of the workforce...
I think any huge tech company or private equity owned company will be a rat race. There are plenty of tech jobs that don’t fall under that umbrella. They might not pay as well, but they’re out there!
We job hop, have multiple hustles. Many people on this board have started multiple companies, sometimes at once, on an ongoing basis. Do you only want just one friend? People tend to have multiple romantic/sexual entanglements, sometimes at once, but generally more than one over a lifetime.
I think this can be a useful maxim to get you to the next day, but in reality it takes a lot more than one of anything for a fulfilling life. We grow and change and need novelty. We are held in a web of interdependent, ever-shifting relationships - with people, businesses, material goods, ecology. I think that generally people are seeking connection in a broader sphere. To be held in community, to have multiple significant identities (mother/wife/boss), to live in richness and abundance where any one thing is not make or break.
> in reality it takes a lot more than one of anything for a fulfilling life
We seem to view "reality" through different lenses. I've usually found "one" to be a magic number; as long as it's the "right one." That's the gist of what he's saying.
In my experience, needing more than one, often signals issues that need closer examination.
In my community, we have a joke: "An addict is someone that needs two One-A-Days."
I find the same, individual jobs or relationships seem to give supralinear returns.
There's a lot of initial investment and groundworks, then once you're well-integrated, the marginal returns get higher for the most established relationships.
Do you really think that is what the author meant? They're not saying "you only need 1". They're talking about going from 0 to 1. It's sometimes a long and arduous 0. Your framing doesn't help someone trying to get from 0 to 1. Once they're at 1 though, sure. But getting there can feel helpless, and that's what this post is about.
We can try to walk in 10-20 directions at the same time and move a tiny direction all, or none.
Or we can realize we have some things to learn that we will learn no matter whether we pick the startup, or job to learn transferrable skills and also become better well rounded.
What do you do if the job that makes you an offer doesn't excite you? What if the house that feels like home needs more repairs than you can afford? What if the program that accepts you has crappy funding? What if the person who chooses you has red flags?
Do you say "screw it," cross your fingers, and walk through the door that kind of sucks? Or do you keep looking as long as your resources last you?
Maybe consider that we are all calibrated to standards that are this hodgepodge of other people’s messaging of what standards should be, and they communicate them for a variety of reasons, very few of which are truly designed for your reality, your situation.
So when you say, ‘kinda sucks’, perhaps ask if the opinion is grounded in (your) reality?
Once recalibrated to accept that what we are in, is inescapable true life, then we stop looking for something better, and instead focus on the challenge of making it better than it should naturally be.
Happiness I believe, is a decision, we choose it when we feel it’s a sustainable perspective. I think it’s sustainable to allow ourselves to be happy, whenever we achieve marginal improvement on what is natural.
Every situation is different, and none of us can reliably predict the future. Sometimes dealing with a bad job until you get a better one is the right move. Sometimes it's the wrong move.
Specifics, about the job and yourself, matter. If you feel like sharing, this is a pretty good community with good instincts.
The magic in "all it takes is for one to work out" is in the strength it gives you to keep trying. Trying something that might fail is hard, even when we know that trying is the right thing to do.
Often the "one" you need isn't the ideal, it's just what gets you into the market. I'm thinking a job that gets you some experience and much needed pay or a property that lets you build equity while prices continue to climb.
These are not final decisions, get something going is better than nothing. You don't need to be locked on a job, or a house, or a degree. People have more time in their life than they seem to think. Sure, you might spend a few years on something not ideal, but the alternative being nothing is much worse
Right. All it takes is for one to work out, if you have several suitable options. If some of the options are only vaguely suitable, or it comes to light through the process that some of them are not suitable at all, then it takes more than just one working out. That's what I was thinking while reading this.
I think author's use of the word "the" is misleading:
> You don’t need every job to choose you. You just need the one that’s the right fit. [emphasis mine]
You don't need the job that's the right fit. There's more than one. You need any job that fits. (Or that you can make fit you.)
So, if you want to size up the search, let p be the probability that a typical job you apply for will (1) result in you being hired and (2) be a job that fits you. Then the expected number of jobs you must apply to before getting hired to a job that fits you is 1/p. [1]
Say you think p = 5%. Then, on average, you'll need to apply to 20 jobs to land one that fits you.
How many jobs do you need to apply to have a 90% chance of landing one that fits you? If q is the wanted probablity of overall success, then the number of jobs k you must apply to is given by k = log(1 − q) / log(1 − p). So, in this example, k = log(1 − 0.9) / log(1 − 0.05) ≈ 45 applications.
That's a lot of rejections and ill-fitting jobs before landing one that sticks. Which is why it's useful to be persistent and flexible. Being able to make a job fit can dramatically reduce your search.
“All it takes is for one to work out.” is not the same as "You just need the one [job] that’s the right fit." or "You just need the one [house] that feels like home." or "You just need the one [life partner]."
Author's examples are, spiritually, the opposite of their friend's advice - in fact, "all it takes is for one to work out" is something often said to people who lost hope because they got lost being too picky.
Simplifications always leave something out. It's like the three body problem: people think one factor matters most, and one other factor controls it. But once they realize there is a third factor that alters one or the first two, or mediates between them, it gets more complicated.
How many great opportunities are passed up by people waiting for the 'perfect' one to come along?
Job offers passed on because it wasn't the perfect fit. Marriage chances missed because the perfect soul mate must still be around the corner. Good schools rejected because it wasn't their dream school.
Luck often accompanies those willing to accept less than perfect in many cases.
A corollary to this, for me at least, has always been: don’t try to fake your way into an opportunity. Be yourself, let people pass on the real you if they want, because you don’t want to land a job where you can’t thrive as yourself. Obviously there’s great privilege in that and sometimes you need to eat shit in order to eat at all, but if you have the option I hope you’re able to wait for the right fit.
I thought HN is supposed to upvote articles that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Does this article gratify intellectual curiosity? I don't understand why these shallow feel-good articles devoid of any intellectual curiosity always get upvoted to the top! There are so many high effort, substantive articles at https://news.ycombinator.com/newest that nobody upvotes!
The blog post is simple but it was enough of a good prompt to spark an interesting discussion. Sometimes the comments expand the depth of an idea and that's where the meat of curiosity thrives.
because even when it isn't why people come here, and if there was too much of it you may be right - a message which brings up a smile or warm feeling is enough for people to be thankfull
Obviously the article is voted to the top. So the the lurkers at /newest and the general HN audience must like this. Still I wish though that upvoters stuck to the HN guidelines of upvoting stuff that really gratifies one's intellectual curiosity, not just some feel-good piece. There is no shortage of other places where I can find feel-good articles. I want HN to stick to HN guidelines.
This is all the more sad for me because among all the spam, many high effort articles get posted to /newest but many don't get the upvotes. These shallow, feel-good articles always get the upvotes. I guess it takes more time to read and appreciate a high effort article. So I understand why this happens. But ...
I submit articles personally that I think will start interesting conversations. I didn’t submit this one. But I suspected it would go in the direction of trying to start a company - which it did. That is entirely on brand for a site run by a VC company.
Each "no" is a signal that you're still trying which puts you above many people whose ego can't handle hearing that word so they settle and turn to bitterness.
Exactly correct. As a YouTuber, all it takes is one YouTube Short to go viral for me, and I'll have hundreds of thousands of subscribers overnight. I haven't had anything go seriously viral, but my biggest Shorts have resulted in huge subscriber jumps. The best advice I ever received was to consistently post for years on end. If you have high-quality content, one of those Shorts is almost certain to eventually hit the big leagues.
When it does, your life will change in an instant.
On the one hand it is a wholesome article. On the other hand - so much wasted potential of people squeezing out the last bits when competing. Nash equilibria can suck
It's also interesting to consider that we are such adaptative creatures that we will likely settle to a similar level of happiness no matter what the choice.
Taking a break from studying for my interview in two days at a FANG company, I checked Hacker News and this article was at the top. I've been studying for this interview harder than any of the others in the past. I feel well-prepared, but there's always the luck factor. I hope this is a sign that this interview will be the one to work out!
I’ve considered some form of grad school a few times, but I always came to the conclusion there just wasn’t enough value in it for a software engineer like me. I don’t plan on teaching, and I’m not really interested in the “science” of computer science so much as the practice of it. Anyone able to validate or challenge my assumptions here?
This is a great approach! After every opportunity that closed on me another arose, and it always was the better one.
Through these experiences I totally agree, and try to apply it to life, but it's hard, even knowing that it's true. How cool is it for every college, person, job offer, scholarship to want you?
Even though we're looking just for "the one" it's very hard for me to mitigate the feeling of getting rejected, even knowing it was not "the one". Rejection generally hurts, when you care about the goal
On a much less optimistic dark humor note, this is the same argument in If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies about a superintelligent AI emerging and being a threat to humans.
No it's not. Gambler's fallacy is "I just flipped tails so heads is more likely now". I read this article as "heads has a 50% chance of coming up so I'll get one eventually" (which is true - law of large numbers).
I think none of those blanket statements here work.
Really it's just odds of finding success vs effort / time spent. And whether that's worth it.
Any of the blanket statements could be true depending on what the exact odds are.
There could be near 0% chance of finding success and it would be better idea to rethink and spend time elsewhere, or yes, there's 10% chance of finding success and it's significant enough that trying 20 times is enough.
If we are talking about e.g. finding a house, if you are not finding any it could very well be that your expectations vs budget is unlikely to find anything and you have to reconsider strategy.
Someone could be repeatedly trying to find work, and thinking it's just a matter of time, but really time would be better spent on improving their strategy, resume, or other means.
These statements to me seem like motivational non-sense which misrepresent how real world works or what the patterns really are like. At best they just give someone a false understanding of how the world works, at worst they make someone spend all their time in the wrong direction.
The way I read this is that there are many "games" in life (applying for schools, jobs, dating, etc) where the odds of "winning" each instance are not in your favor, but you only need to win once to win overall. If you treat every absence of a positive outcome as a failure, then you're inevitably going to lose hope and give up.
This is in contrast to gambling where you actually do need to win more often than not to win overall.
Indeed. "Just one more roll of the dice and I'll be ahead."
Worse, this guy isn't trying to get a job. He's just trying to get into grad school. Which is no longer a guarantee of a good career, but may be a guarantee of a big debt. Remember that "I did everything right" post on HN a few weeks ago? CS degree from a good school, but nobody wants junior CS people any more.
Purely poetic advice. If the local economy collapses, you will very much want to move. There's still a 50% chance the first spouse doesn't hold up until death. There are many schools that give out degrees that aren't worth a wooden frame in today's job market.
I think it would be better if it were about exercising; it's more useful advise that way.
So, all it takes is for you to work out: You may not get into that grad school / that job, but you'll be healthier and you'll feel less depressed. In fact, even if you're in grad school, it's pretty good advice for coping avoiding burnout, coping with impostor syndrome etc.
The problem is that the opportunity you need might be a 1 in 100 lifetimes opportunity...
These days once in a lifetime opportunities are getting increasingly rare... This is something that the lucky few do not understand because they may pass up on once-in-100-lifetimes opportunities just about every single day. The asymmetry of opportunities is massive.
Our system is not a level playing field.
No system in the history of humanity has wasted as much human potential as our current system. Opportunities are completely monopolized.
> You don’t need every job to choose you. You just need the one that’s the right fit.
You mean, the first one to say yes. Tbh seems more like first to say yes, not first to be fit and say yes.
> You don’t need every house to accept your offer. You just need the one that feels like home.
Same here. Is easy to find one to say yes. Hard to be “feels like home” && say yes.
> You don’t need every person to want to build a life with you. You just need the one.
“The one” is hard.
>You don’t need ten universities to say yes. You just need the one that opens the right door.
Same. What even means “the right door”? How can you even know before you got in?
I think it’s a bad analogy. At least frame it a more realistic: your only need one job to say yes. Might not be the right job but it’s a job. Same for all other.
I agree with his sentiments and his examples. But my fear is that on a place like Hacker News, people might not understand the difference between his advice and trying to have a successful startup.
>You don’t need every job to choose you. You just need the one that’s the right fit.
When I’m applying for a job, I can apply for multiple jobs at once and interview for multiple jobs over a a few weeks. It’s especially easy when I am both interviewing and working remotely. I don’t have to make excuses to leave work during the middle of the day or worse case fly out for an interview.
The same is true for buying a home, I can put bids in for multiple homes - or in my case just have my homes built in 2003 and 2016. I know the world is different now.
>You don’t need every person to want to build a life with you. You just need the one.
This is one place where of course you can shoot your shot at multiple potential partners and date often. What you don’t want to do is try marriage multiple times if it can be avoided. A bad marriage will wreck every part of your life and a divorce will set you back financially. (Happily remarried for 15 years after a horrible first marriage.)
None of his examples are applicable to starting a business. 9/10 startups fail and even out of those that “succeed” only a small number of those have an outsized return for the founder where they wouldn’t be better off financially working a regular old enterprise dev job for those years let alone getting a job at BigTech.
VCs can make multiple bets at one time and be more assured that they capture the 1/10 startups that succeed than a founder.
There is a huge difference between being able to take multiple chances at once in all of those scenarios and being stuck with the 1/10 choices you make for multiple years.
Why are so many people in this thread purposefully misinterpreting the post so they can criticize it? The author obviously doesn't mean you only need one thing per domain to work out in your lifetime, but the present. I.e you don't need two girlfriends at once, even though you might have multiple relationships throughout your life...
While it’s true that all we need is one to work out, in general we strive to be in positions where we have multiple options, not just hinging everything on one passing chance. Life is less stressful that way, and that’s why people today feel like they are under so much pressure and have little choice over how their lives unfold.
I'm confused. This just seems like feel-good bullshit advice that only works for people in extremely good circumstances.
There's a false equivalence between -
“All it takes is for one to work out.”
and the following:
- "You don’t need every job to choose you. You just need the one that’s the right fit."
- "You don’t need every house to accept your offer. You just need the one that feels like home. "
The latter assumes that _every_ attempt you make has a chance at being "the right fit", "the one that feels like home". That is not the way things works for 99% of us.
This is why having a safety net and resources to try again is so powerful. Given enough chances you will make it, big. That means the #1 factor in success is the number of chances you get to fail and try again, not necessarily how inherently good you are. I try to remind myself of this often. I have been given so many chances, and I took them.
This always sounded intuitively correct to me, but looking back over the past two decades basically all of the successful entrepreneurs and business owners I know didn’t come from families with a lot of resources and didn’t have much of a safety net. They just went all in on their goals when they were young and had many years ahead of them to start over if it all went wrong.
Contrast this with some of the people I grew up who came from wealthy families: A lot of their parents pushed them toward entrepreneurship and funded their ventures, but to date I can only think of one business from this cluster of friends that went anywhere. When you come from such resources and wealth that you don’t need to succeed and you can drop the business as soon as it becomes difficult, it’s a different situation.
I don’t know exactly what to make of this, other than to remind myself to keep pushing through the difficult times for things I really want even when I could fall back to an easy path and give up.
Who are you thinking of? Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, Musk all came from wealthy families. They all had the safety net of their family wealth if their business didn’t work out. Even someone who had parents to pay their student loans is relatively privileged, not everyone starts their 20’s debt-free and able to take financial risks.
I've seen quite a few of these funded entrepreneur-lifestyle kids now; I've worked (briefly) with many of their companies. Many of them are making enough of a real go at it such that I can't tell them from others, but quite a few don't know enough about how a default alive business works and deliver a DoA even when the core idea or a short pivot works and has traction - these guys need so much better PMF to succeed.
The best businesses I've seen parents find for their children are lettings agents (urgh) and basic manufacturing (last mile door assembly etc.). You can get the business model in a six month course, the staff are minimum wage, the product is high margin. If your parents buy the building you are so close to default alive its a joke. Grow the business, flip it, and try the big idea.
There is also survivor bias at play here.
Succeeding without safety net is hard -> only the best can do it -> the best entrepreneurs you know did not had a safety net
Then let’s control for that. Among people with a decent safety net, can we correlate eventual success with number of tries?
The answer seems self evident, but idk for sure, and I would like to know the Gini coefficient of successes vs failures among safety netters be that of non-safety netters. Wouldn’t we expect the successes within the safety net to be massively larger on average than those of the non-safety netters, given that a safety net affords you so many more swings to take? Your comment suggests that this is not the case, driven by the selection/survivor effect within non-safety net
I wouldn't assume size of success is correlated with "having success or not." It's notoriously hard to predict what business ideas will succeed at all, let alone be mega-billion-success-stories. Many things could've gone differently leading to Bezos being a ten- or hundred-millionaire vs a multi-billionaire even in worlds where Amazon was successful. AWS, for instance, was not in the original plan.
I think the strongest correlations would be between:
"has safety net" and "has success" - one major factor here is not having a poverty mentality that would lead to panicking and quitting early
as well as between "has safety net" and "takes multiple swings if no initial success", for the direct reason of "can afford to do so."
I mean Gates, Musk, Bezos, etc all had a safety net.
Also need to define what successful means because a lot of trades people are successful solo-prenuers but don't make more than say a doctor.
In a thread about survivor bias, and you fall for the same trap. How many people coming from wealthy background end up failing?
Take Bill Gates, his father cofounded a law firm, and his mother was a board members of several firms. That is a very wealthy background, but not outrageously so. How many people of the same level of wealth became successful businesspeople? It's said that his mom being on the same board as IBM's CEO at the time was a more instrumental factor to his eventual success than his family's wealth, and his own effort of course.
> It's said that his mom being on the same board as IBM's CEO at the time was a more instrumental factor to his eventual success than his family's wealth, and his own effort of course.
This sounds a lot like "his family's wealth was a more instrumental factor than his family's wealth" since "being on a board" is pretty rarified air. It's not Gates-himself-level wealthy, but what percentile is that? 90th? 95th? 99th?
> but not outrageously so
Compared to 99.99% of the 8.3bn people on the planet, yes.
HN never ceases to amaze me with its conception of what "wealthy and successful" means.
Look at success in buckets. 10x , 100x, 1000x etc
People, it wasn’t just a safety net.
Bezos’s mom was his first investor, giving him $300K.
Then he also had connections to millionaires through his family
Bill Gates’ mother, Mary Gates, was instrumental in securing Microsoft's first major deal with IBM through her connections. His family was wealthy and provided connections and support
What about Replit? Two guys in a coffee shop in Jordan, you cannot be much further from Silicon Valley. They got turned down four times from YC and decided never to try again. But pg fell in love with the startup and urged him to try again. Then during the interview one of them got into a heated argument with Michael Siebel and thought for sure he had failed.
Yet he got in without a wealthy family and an American Ivy League degree. There are lots of other examples, I can even think of a one in Michigan.
Sure, but if Bill Gates was a drug addict with no software, there would have been no deal and he certainly wouldn't have been successful.
Whenever I see the topic of success, people LOVE to talk about 'survivorship bias' as a way to somehow discredit the person that is successful and also give an excuse as to why they might not be successful.
It's pretty destructive in a community that's supposed to be about startups and building businesses. This is why I originally came here years ago, but it seems like the mindset has shifted to anti-capitalist group think.
Good to share, but n=1 I suppose. For me (also n=1) it's the opposite in my circle. The ones without resources never went anywhere and reproduced their parents' class. The ones with resources that went into entrepreneurship (and had the possibility of failing and still being fine) are the most successful.
Agreed on your final point though! Tenacity probably is the biggest driver.
If you don’t have a fall back, you have no choice but to make it work.
And if making it by hoping really really hard doesn't work, try suicide or something?
Or fail miserably…
Which we don't hear about. Except maybe via GoFundMe.
You know what?
Peter used to say, that every successful company could look back at a defining moment early on, where they would have died had it not been for the courage, and the tenacity, and maybe the insanity of one visionary person who put it all on the line, even though it seemed like a huge mistake at the time.
A moment where all the metrics and the numbers didn't mean anything.
It was all about the emotion. It was about belief, rational or irrational.
And I think...
I hope that I just witnessed that.
On the other hand, no matter what you do, you can’t invest like Warren Buffett.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/11/19/why-you-...
The whole idea of succeeding by “grit” makes way too many people too idealistic and unrealistic.
Don’t get me wrong, Peter Drucker (hopefully that’s the Peter you are referring to) had some great actionable advice. But believing in yourself and having grit is about as banal as “thoughts and prayers”
You know what? This is indeed where courage, tenacity, and risk-taking make a difference.
But what makes the difference in whether or not we hear about it is pure luck and survivor bias.
If their luck was just right that with all that push in the right time the deal came through or the product sold, then we hear about what a great success it was, and how important was their grit.
And many smart determined people with all the courage, tenacity, and risk-taking in the world have also taken the big risk, but dice did not roll their way, or the hill was just so steep it didn't work, so we hear nothing of them. And their number likely vastly exceeds the few for whom it did work.
Cortez burning^Wscuttling his ships.
This is literally survivorship bias. All the successful ones you know of, because the unsuccessful ones failed, by definition.
> looking back over the past two decades basically all of the successful entrepreneurs and business owners I know didn’t come from families with a lot of resources and didn’t have much of a safety net
There’s probably some truthyness to this but it doesn’t account for survivorship bias. And there’s a baseline amount of resources necessary to take a risk and be able to try again (e.g., good luck taking a risk when preoccupied by [lack of] health, housing, food).
I’d expect it to stratify based on the kind of business.
Typical small businesses (plumbing, HVAC, restaurants, convenience stores) I’d expect to come from poorer families. These businesses are a potential avenue to success without traditional credentials, and they’re not the sort of thing somebody is likely to start as a passion.
From wealthy families, I’d expect vanity businesses. There wouldn’t be as much motivation for the annoying aspects of a real business. And anyone who is interested in business can probably get a nice start in something their family owns or has a major stake in.
Moonshot companies I’d expect to come from the upper middle class, children of doctors and such. Not fabulously wealthy, so the potential for making millions can still be a big motivator. But comfortable enough to get advanced schooling and be willing to aim big with a chance of failure, rather than going for something mundane you know is always in demand, like fixing pipes.
Off the top of my head, Gates, Page, and Zuckerberg all fit that mold.
Would be interesting to run the priors on this and say what is the probability of startup success given "rich" "middle class" and "poor".
Otherwise maybe more poor people try startups so success will be biased towards them (rich will take over daddy or mommy business... maybe take a shot at a startup for fun but say meh lets try the business, plus there are waaaaay fewer rich).
Or to put it another way: Most people who live >100 are also from modest backgrounds too. As are olympic gold winners. Us paupers are the best!
you can extend that to all Silicon Valley and the US in general.
It has one of the weakest social security systems. Not even proper healthcare is guaranteed. Yet it out innovates all of Europe, Canada, Australia, other places that have incredible social "safety nets".
I agree with the other commenter: safety nets and multiple tries are always good to have, but persistence and grit are even more important, and these come more from necessity.
> Yet it out innovates all of Europe, Canada, Australia, other places that have incredible social "safety nets".
Probability: highly unlikely.
Speaking for Europe, I see a lot of silent innovation. No press, no LinkedIn posts, not an article on their website. There are a lot of US firms that shop in Europe for high tech. (I know of instances were the US company buys the IP from the EU supplier + take public credit for it + forbids the supplier for showcasing their success in public.)
What is different is:
1) the amount of money available in the US. The US enjoyed a very beneficial position post-WOII, enabling them to run high deficits.
2) the US has a positive attitude to entrepreneurship. You are not a failure when your company goes bankrupt, you learn from it and you go-go-go.
Also the EU lacks a unified capital market where infinite VC money can be pooled together into any new hype. I would argue this the biggest reason.
EU countries also have very high tax rates, which feels like the community is the primary beneficiary of your business, not you the entrepreneur. This alone severely reduces the financial incentive of starting a business. There's also some weird cultural stigma in the EU's more socialist countries (like France), where the system is way more comfortable for you as an employee rather than a risk taker. Let's call a spade a spade.
The way you say it, it sounds like the EU shouldn’t have any companies at all, but that is not true. In fact, the EU is very good at boring tech, which is the reason why the US is imposing high tariffs.
What is silent innovation? Do you think there are no silent innovation in the US?
Productivity is lacking in those other countries. That said, I don't think it has to do with safety net, which is not much different in the U.S.
You can have all of the “grit” you want to and still fail. You just never hear about the failures.
Most of the US graduates have their degree and a network to fall back on. It's nice to have actual money in the bank, but it can also be acceptable to have a high chance of getting a rewarding job if the moonshot doesn't work.
In other words, human capital.
Most of the entrepreneurs I meet are not going to be homeless if things don't work out. They'll be employed.
Exactly this many also have parents who can help subsidize them, stay on their parents health insurance until they are 26 and worse case move back home. This isn’t just the privilege rich, this can also be your mid to mid upper income couple who can help their kids out.
Yep, and most of these fallbacks are insurance-like: you can always say you never asked your parents for anything. Like me. Thing worked out, so I didn't need their money. But if they hadn't, I would have a place to sleep and eat.
"But if they hadn't, I would have a place to sleep and eat."
Forgive me for asking, but (if it's acceptable to reduce it to that) isn't joining the army or something gets one covered? The army service would come with the added bonus of not letting you go soft in perseverance and risk taking areas.
/sarcasm
> Not even proper healthcare is guaranteed.
…except it is. Health insurance is available on a sliding scale based on income and essentially free for most low income people.
In some areas and for some people, Medicaid probably does count as proper healthcare. But it certainly doesn't for other people / other places. Imagine there being one doctor within a multi-million person metro area who takes Medicaid for some sub-specialty. 90 minutes away from you by car. And you don't have a car. This is the reality for millions of Medicaid recipients, including ones I know personally in Chicago.
Not Medicaid, subsidized ACA. I know a lot of young healthy people that just take the chance of not having health care. Worse case you can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip if you have to go the emergency room.
I don’t think my older (step)son has had insurance since he got off our plan at 26 over two years ago.
Sure, although in some areas healthcare is effectively unavailable to Medicaid plan members because providers have stopped accepting those patients. Being insured doesn't mean much if you can't schedule an appointment.
https://www.wsj.com/health/healthcare/medicaid-insurers-doct...
Well, how many non-successful entrepreneurs and business owners do you know?
Every single western "entrepreneur" who starts making a little more than 100k/year likes to tell itself this story.
Did you have any (real, not GenZ) mental or physical disability?
Did you have a house to come back to every day? Did you have a hot meal waiting for you whenever you wanted?
Did you have a community that supported you through your business?
Did you have a legal structure around you that allowed you not to worry about getting kidnapped/killed? A structure that enforces getting paid after you've earned your money?
98% of what you have was given.
I do agree, however, that a lot of people don't even bother to put in the remaining 2%.
“Can you start a business without $10m of family capital” is a societal question.
“Can you start a business on an empty stomach without a roof over your head” is not the same debate. A roof over your head is a prerequisite to almost everything else in life - starting a business is WAY down the list. Better to have societies work to provide food and roofs - which they do, with varying degrees of success.
It is the exact same debate.
People without those things cannot play the lottery as many times as those who have them. They might not even get to play it once.
If everyone around you has all of those basic human needs met, you are the exception.
But of course people don't like to hear this, because their whole meritocracy myth (which has always been trash) comes falling down and they might be forced to admit that, please excuse me for making this outrageous statement, ... you're just an average person with slightly better luck than others.
(It is true, however, that "luck" compounds through your life and even more through generations, though. But that even detracts from the meritocracy myth even more, as the family you're born in greatly defines what you'll achieve.)
Becoming an entrepreneur happens most of the times merely for advancing one's personal financial success. But, another side of it, which doesn't usually get attention, is that you become a beneficial factor for the society at large, because you are assumed to be doing something good and appreciated by others to earn that money. (Otherwise, earning money without being willingly paid, would make you just a criminal). You are right, this "compounds through your life and even more through generations". Especially through generations. This is how the prosperous societies got here - people doing all sorts of things that led to prosperity. If you don't not live in a society like that, then your business should be building a society first. Put your brick in the wall.
It also means that, unless the state of the environment you're in has some "force majeure" as a cause, then the people that were before you haven't done that of a good job building one either. That's not an individual failure, that's generations of failure, don't you think?
And lastly, if the environment you described is the one you're residing in, that means you're far removed from that of the entrepreneur's (you're casting judgement on) and from his/her stance. How can that lead to a caracter judgement worth anything?
I don't think anyone believes the idea of meritocracy applies to starving homeless slaves.
Luck is often the deciding factor in meritocracy, but we also make our own luck. You can have all the privleges in the world and still end up as a failson, it happens all the time.
What’s even funnier when I hear that my thought is “congratulations I guess??”. They are now making less than an average mid level developer doing CRUD enterprise dev 3 years out of school in any major metro area in the US.
That’s not even considering that the intern I mentored in 2021 is now making in the low $200s as an SA at BigTech at 25.
All of those things are great and should be afforded to every Person. In many places, they are.
The key ingredient is the courage to try, not the safety net. Countries lauded for their strong safety nets are not overflowing with people taking ambitious risks. Often quite the opposite; the strong safety net reflects a cultural aversion to risk.
People with the courage to try don’t need a safety net to do it. In practice they seem to be almost inversely correlated.
An important aspect not mentioned is feeling like you will be adequately rewarded if your calculated risks pay off. This seems to be more pertinent than safety nets in practice.
It's like a baseball game. Most people are benched their whole lives. They never get a chance at the plate. More privileged people with a lucky combination of the right family, the right education, the right timing, and the right opportunity get an at-bat, and they'll either strike out, or hit the ball. A few very lucky people will get to stand at the plate maybe once or twice more.
The wealthy get infinite at-bats. They get to stand at the plate for however long they want, and swing and swing until they get their home run. I worked with a founder like this. He would always talk about his business's humble beginnings, starting from a garage and so on--you know the story. What he would neglect to admit was this was like his 7th try. Every time he failed, he'd just chill on his family's couch, dreaming up his next startup idea.
I think it was Outliers (Malcolm Gladwell) that talked about a similar concept as well. Ignoring the 10k hour thing, it also talks abut small compounding advantages that later add up to more opportunity (for those that take it).
To go with the sports analogy, (paraphrasing, been awhile since I read it) it mentions how birth date coinciding with the youth sport season was a strong determiner of success at that sport because being ~11 months older in the same age group meant they were bigger faster more experienced and would be played more, compounding increases in skill.
There was also a similar concept floating around about darts, where the poor get maybe one dart to throw, middle class a few and wealthier get many. But I can't remember where I saw or read that
Thanks for the book mention. Adam Grant also talks about the age-group concept, but leans on it for a different end, in Hidden Potential.
This is not true. No matter how many different teams I try out for, I as a 51 year old short male with a limp will never be a star basketball player or ever make it to even the D leagues.
There are plenty of people who tried repeatedly to “succeed” in their own company and failed. Let’s say I did try to start my own company at 22 10x and spent 3 years at each one. I’m now 52 and would have been better off just working those 30 years and saving and investing with a lot less stress
You as a short 51 year old could create your own league. Be a star. But no you cannot play in other leagues with younger players.
See my other comment about being able to create a product and not having a go to market strategy or sales is like thinking just because I can dribble doesn’t mean I would succeed in the NBA.
I think the level of success one wants also require having a check for delusion and realism. If a "51 year old short limp" thinks they are going to be a star basketball player, they are delusional and no longer realistic.
How many people right here on HN have you seen over the years who built something and had no idea about marketing or a go to market strategy or knew anything about sales?
That’s the equivalent of a 51 year old with a limp not being self aware enough to know that I don’t have the skills to be a basketball player just because I can dribble.
If your energy is finite (which is normally the case), the effect may also depend on the energy per shot you spend. A birdshot allows you to hit great many possible targets, but only very weakly. A buckshot hits fewer targets, but packs a bit more punch. A FMJ bullet shot from a sniper rifle allows you to hit an exact target with a great force, but you have to choose carefully.
What worked for me best was looking around a lot, identifying a few worthy targets, and aiming well.
Out of curiosity (not accusation, I promise) how did you make it?
Well said, this is the real game to pursue. Best of continued luck.
That sounds good, but with a safety net, are you really going to be hungry enough to make sure your one shot at getting out of the ghetto doesn't fail? The entrepreneur that says to themselves, if this doesn't work, I'll just ask mom for another $300k at St Barts over Christmas doesn't sound like the one sleeping under the desk at the office to get the demo ready for TechCrunch Disrupt. Or maybe they are (to prove daddy wrong). The human condition contains multitudes.
Gates, Bezos, Buffet, Musk all had enough hunger to beat out literally everyone else
And they also all came from money.
> doesn't sound like the one sleeping under the desk at the office to get the demo ready for TechCrunch Disrupt
For what? Their garbage SaaS that barely works and is just a thin veneer for advertisers to gorge on my data?
Ahh yes, classic HN: "People only succeed/work hard if their only other option is death"
My wife and I are starting to test this theory. We are putting our kid in an expensive school, then starting a business to support our lifestyle. If we fail, our kid’ll have to go to a cheaper school and we’d have lost a few years of school fees. If we succeed, yay.
By the time, our are faced with the choice, our kid will be embedded in school so ripping them out of it is going to be a tough choice.
So, yeah, we’re essentially burning our boats and fighting to survive.
Don't live above your means because an unexpected event is likely to happen. Plus creating a situation where all peers are rich and only your kid is not doesn't open the doors to future success compared to if they were at their peers lifestyle level.
We grappled with this too but in the end, our decision was influenced by our parents choosing to live beyond their means to put us through good schools and college. If they could grit their teeth and sacrifice for us, we can do the same for the next generation.
Our choice us somewhat made easier because we didn’t like any of the schools near us except this one. The others were focused on exams/results and were larger in size so felt more “corporate”.
That's a cliche and it sucks. A safety net and family resources correlate with nothing related to entrepeneurship and risk taking.
This is definitely not true. How many people for instance can go into journalism and do unpaid internships without family support?
The entire idea of most entrepreneurs pulling themselves up by their bootstraps in tech is a myth. Out of all of major tech companies now, how many of the founders came from disadvantaged backgrounds?
Safety net and resources correlates heavily in almost all aspects of your life, having a better life helps immensely in any project you do in your life, including entrepreneurship
I strongly disagree with the author. The mindset they described somewhat reminds me of body positivity—excess weight is not good for your health, accepting it through a mental shift is a bad advice.
Here is my personal advice to whoever reads this comment. Ignore everything they say on the internet. Do what works best for you. Trust your intuition. Set bold goals. Always learn and strive to become better in everything you do.
If you failed an interview, it’s perfectly ok to be disappointed. Spend a day calling your own self names. It’s normal! The very next day analyze why you failed, see where you need to improve. Rinse and repeat. This will get you whatever the hell you want in this life.
I think you missed the point, he doesn't disagree with your points at all, he's just pointing out that you shouldn't stress yourself out thinking you have to win them all when actually 1 is often all you need.
The “one that works out” can also give you a misrepresentation of how the world works and a false sense of how lucky one should expect to be over a long period of time.
At an earlier point in my life, I had been applying to many well-known big tech companies right out of school (not a top school either). I never got a reply from any of them so I ended up accepting a local job with a non-tech company after months of searching.
But I didn’t give up my hopes and kept applying to big tech, and while I did manage to get the occasional interview with some mediocre companies or the random startup, I also miserably failed all of them too.
At some point during my long period of despair at never getting a better job, my very top pick (and arguably one of the best tech companies in the world at the time) reached out to me. Even more miraculously, I somehow passed their interview (the only tech interview I passed in the prior year) and accepted a job there.
I really enjoyed working there. Some of the best years of my life. And my performance reviews were great too, so the imposter syndrome from having failed so many tech job interviews sort of faded into the background. But after a while, perhaps due to the “hedonic treadmill” mentality, I thought I could do better. So I left to join a startup.
Well, the startup failed, as startups tend to do, but what I didn’t expect and what caught me off guard was that I was now back in the same situation I was in right after graduating from college. Don’t get me wrong—having “the name” on my resume now meant I could get at least one chance at an interview about anywhere. But much like the first round that I tried to forget about, I once again failed all the interviews.
Unfortunately, this second time around never procured a “get out of jail free” card.
So I guess my lesson is: 1) there’s a lot of luck involved in these things, 2) if life gives you a winning lottery ticket at some point, don’t throw it away for the chance to win an even bigger lottery, and 3) that famous saying about “the only actions regretted are those not taken” is absolutely, totally wrong—almost all of my regrets in life relate to taking some action I shouldn’t have rather than inaction.
Well with the style of tech interviews we have, luck is definitely involved. Some questions are simply my style (I like graphs and dynamic programming for example), and I’m lucky if the interviewer happens to choose these. But I don’t like for example two pointers problems.
And also I’ve long ago dissociated my tech interview performance with my actual performance indicated by performance reviews.
A lot of people experienced that during the 2020 boom. The lucky break wasn't a lucky break it was just a huge hiring boom. Once that's over the status quo returns.
My lucky break occurred many years before the pandemic, but after the original dotcom boom. Companies were neither hiring nor firing like crazy.
Corollary: Choosing _not_ to do something is as much an action as choosing _to_ do something. Which shines a bright light on the meaninglessness of the phrase “the only actions regretted are those not taken”.
There's also the option of choosing to not commit to either action. One stays in the status quo without choosing it, but since agency is negatively correlated with regret and no agency was used, the 'choosing not to do something' option probably has a higher chance of being regretted.
It just sounds like you are in a middle of another journey my friend.
To land at the the author's difficulty level, you need to not have chronic life-shifting catastrophes. That is, the sort of challenges that slot your life in a place where the long reaches are to keep housing and hopefully have food for the kids.
I started out where the author was. Well, roughly. +Kids, -Secondary edu. I could and did rise above that. And above 3 economy shifts that each reset my biz to zero.
I did not rise above my spouse being swapped for an adult with profound psych issues. I took on the single dad and caregiver roles well enough.
However, I could not overcome the daily sabotage of, well, everything. It's like a TV trope where you are shackled to your worst enemy. But you have to keep them safe and your loved ones safe from them.
It's tough to maintain a job schedule when the police frequently call you during the workday (w and w/o CPS). Or when your transpo is stolen and can't be replaced.
In short, it's particular tough to pretend to be stable. Eventually there are no bridges left to burn.
Thanks for the kicking back some reality in.
Some of these risks are hard to adjust for. I guess you've got to muster all the grit and keep walking.
Also BTW, you've shown enough but let me wish you more strength for you. All the very best!
Unfortunately, the "one" which accepts you, is no guarantee of it being the one which "works out" (in the short or long term). My experience is now 4x "found one that ultimately doesn't work out" (each lasting 2 to 3 years).
I'm now taking time out to try to figure out how to escape the confines of the career path I've taken to find something different.
Open to suggestions of entirely different careers that I could switch to that might have higher odds of not being toxic rat-races full of people telling lies and bullshit just to survive.
But broader experience suggests the world of work just sucks these days (and yes, it's these days - our parent's generation had a brief period of doing 9-to-5 jobs which paid well enough to afford homes, have families and social lives and holidays. We don't get that now.). No wonder large numbers of my generation are dropping out of the workforce...
I think any huge tech company or private equity owned company will be a rat race. There are plenty of tech jobs that don’t fall under that umbrella. They might not pay as well, but they’re out there!
Genuinely, no sarcasm or whatever intended, I just want to broaden my horizons: what tech jobs did you have in mind? :)
We job hop, have multiple hustles. Many people on this board have started multiple companies, sometimes at once, on an ongoing basis. Do you only want just one friend? People tend to have multiple romantic/sexual entanglements, sometimes at once, but generally more than one over a lifetime.
I think this can be a useful maxim to get you to the next day, but in reality it takes a lot more than one of anything for a fulfilling life. We grow and change and need novelty. We are held in a web of interdependent, ever-shifting relationships - with people, businesses, material goods, ecology. I think that generally people are seeking connection in a broader sphere. To be held in community, to have multiple significant identities (mother/wife/boss), to live in richness and abundance where any one thing is not make or break.
> in reality it takes a lot more than one of anything for a fulfilling life
We seem to view "reality" through different lenses. I've usually found "one" to be a magic number; as long as it's the "right one." That's the gist of what he's saying.
In my experience, needing more than one, often signals issues that need closer examination.
In my community, we have a joke: "An addict is someone that needs two One-A-Days."
Getting from zero straight to the one is like winning the lottery. Most people need to get through multiple "ones" to find "the one".
Agreed. It’s not what I’d call a “fulfilling” process, though.
I find the same, individual jobs or relationships seem to give supralinear returns.
There's a lot of initial investment and groundworks, then once you're well-integrated, the marginal returns get higher for the most established relationships.
Do you really think that is what the author meant? They're not saying "you only need 1". They're talking about going from 0 to 1. It's sometimes a long and arduous 0. Your framing doesn't help someone trying to get from 0 to 1. Once they're at 1 though, sure. But getting there can feel helpless, and that's what this post is about.
We can try to walk in 10-20 directions at the same time and move a tiny direction all, or none.
Or we can realize we have some things to learn that we will learn no matter whether we pick the startup, or job to learn transferrable skills and also become better well rounded.
You've been trying for a long time.
What do you do if the job that makes you an offer doesn't excite you? What if the house that feels like home needs more repairs than you can afford? What if the program that accepts you has crappy funding? What if the person who chooses you has red flags?
Do you say "screw it," cross your fingers, and walk through the door that kind of sucks? Or do you keep looking as long as your resources last you?
Maybe consider that we are all calibrated to standards that are this hodgepodge of other people’s messaging of what standards should be, and they communicate them for a variety of reasons, very few of which are truly designed for your reality, your situation.
So when you say, ‘kinda sucks’, perhaps ask if the opinion is grounded in (your) reality?
Once recalibrated to accept that what we are in, is inescapable true life, then we stop looking for something better, and instead focus on the challenge of making it better than it should naturally be.
Happiness I believe, is a decision, we choose it when we feel it’s a sustainable perspective. I think it’s sustainable to allow ourselves to be happy, whenever we achieve marginal improvement on what is natural.
Every situation is different, and none of us can reliably predict the future. Sometimes dealing with a bad job until you get a better one is the right move. Sometimes it's the wrong move.
Specifics, about the job and yourself, matter. If you feel like sharing, this is a pretty good community with good instincts.
The magic in "all it takes is for one to work out" is in the strength it gives you to keep trying. Trying something that might fail is hard, even when we know that trying is the right thing to do.
My point is that, at least anecdotally, certainty is rare. Most of the time, for most people, the experience is less "yes!" and more "I guess."
More widely applicable advice would be how to deal with compromise, not how to hold out for "the right one."
Often the "one" you need isn't the ideal, it's just what gets you into the market. I'm thinking a job that gets you some experience and much needed pay or a property that lets you build equity while prices continue to climb.
These are not final decisions, get something going is better than nothing. You don't need to be locked on a job, or a house, or a degree. People have more time in their life than they seem to think. Sure, you might spend a few years on something not ideal, but the alternative being nothing is much worse
Right. All it takes is for one to work out, if you have several suitable options. If some of the options are only vaguely suitable, or it comes to light through the process that some of them are not suitable at all, then it takes more than just one working out. That's what I was thinking while reading this.
I think author's use of the word "the" is misleading:
> You don’t need every job to choose you. You just need the one that’s the right fit. [emphasis mine]
You don't need the job that's the right fit. There's more than one. You need any job that fits. (Or that you can make fit you.)
So, if you want to size up the search, let p be the probability that a typical job you apply for will (1) result in you being hired and (2) be a job that fits you. Then the expected number of jobs you must apply to before getting hired to a job that fits you is 1/p. [1]
Say you think p = 5%. Then, on average, you'll need to apply to 20 jobs to land one that fits you.
How many jobs do you need to apply to have a 90% chance of landing one that fits you? If q is the wanted probablity of overall success, then the number of jobs k you must apply to is given by k = log(1 − q) / log(1 − p). So, in this example, k = log(1 − 0.9) / log(1 − 0.05) ≈ 45 applications.
That's a lot of rejections and ill-fitting jobs before landing one that sticks. Which is why it's useful to be persistent and flexible. Being able to make a job fit can dramatically reduce your search.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_binomial_distribution
Bait & switch, though.
“All it takes is for one to work out.” is not the same as "You just need the one [job] that’s the right fit." or "You just need the one [house] that feels like home." or "You just need the one [life partner]."
Author's examples are, spiritually, the opposite of their friend's advice - in fact, "all it takes is for one to work out" is something often said to people who lost hope because they got lost being too picky.
Simplifications always leave something out. It's like the three body problem: people think one factor matters most, and one other factor controls it. But once they realize there is a third factor that alters one or the first two, or mediates between them, it gets more complicated.
How many great opportunities are passed up by people waiting for the 'perfect' one to come along?
Job offers passed on because it wasn't the perfect fit. Marriage chances missed because the perfect soul mate must still be around the corner. Good schools rejected because it wasn't their dream school.
Luck often accompanies those willing to accept less than perfect in many cases.
A corollary to this, for me at least, has always been: don’t try to fake your way into an opportunity. Be yourself, let people pass on the real you if they want, because you don’t want to land a job where you can’t thrive as yourself. Obviously there’s great privilege in that and sometimes you need to eat shit in order to eat at all, but if you have the option I hope you’re able to wait for the right fit.
I thought HN is supposed to upvote articles that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Does this article gratify intellectual curiosity? I don't understand why these shallow feel-good articles devoid of any intellectual curiosity always get upvoted to the top! There are so many high effort, substantive articles at https://news.ycombinator.com/newest that nobody upvotes!
The blog post is simple but it was enough of a good prompt to spark an interesting discussion. Sometimes the comments expand the depth of an idea and that's where the meat of curiosity thrives.
because even when it isn't why people come here, and if there was too much of it you may be right - a message which brings up a smile or warm feeling is enough for people to be thankfull
and that is a good thing
Obviously the article is voted to the top. So the the lurkers at /newest and the general HN audience must like this. Still I wish though that upvoters stuck to the HN guidelines of upvoting stuff that really gratifies one's intellectual curiosity, not just some feel-good piece. There is no shortage of other places where I can find feel-good articles. I want HN to stick to HN guidelines.
This is all the more sad for me because among all the spam, many high effort articles get posted to /newest but many don't get the upvotes. These shallow, feel-good articles always get the upvotes. I guess it takes more time to read and appreciate a high effort article. So I understand why this happens. But ...
I submit articles personally that I think will start interesting conversations. I didn’t submit this one. But I suspected it would go in the direction of trying to start a company - which it did. That is entirely on brand for a site run by a VC company.
Mission accomplished.
Related: You should expect to keep getting "no"s until you get a yes. That means, getting a "no" is actually normal, it's not failing.
Each "no" is a signal that you're still trying which puts you above many people whose ego can't handle hearing that word so they settle and turn to bitterness.
Exactly correct. As a YouTuber, all it takes is one YouTube Short to go viral for me, and I'll have hundreds of thousands of subscribers overnight. I haven't had anything go seriously viral, but my biggest Shorts have resulted in huge subscriber jumps. The best advice I ever received was to consistently post for years on end. If you have high-quality content, one of those Shorts is almost certain to eventually hit the big leagues.
When it does, your life will change in an instant.
On the one hand it is a wholesome article. On the other hand - so much wasted potential of people squeezing out the last bits when competing. Nash equilibria can suck
The article is good, but I am more impressed by how the author has been posting every day since May 12th, 2008.
All it takes is one.
I read the title and thought it meant that if you just exercise everything else will fall into place.
I should probably still try that.
At some point you don't need "the one that gives you joy". You need the one that pays the bills and feeds the family
Reminds me of Veritasium's recent video[0] on power law distributions.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBluLfX2F_k
It's also interesting to consider that we are such adaptative creatures that we will likely settle to a similar level of happiness no matter what the choice.
Taking a break from studying for my interview in two days at a FANG company, I checked Hacker News and this article was at the top. I've been studying for this interview harder than any of the others in the past. I feel well-prepared, but there's always the luck factor. I hope this is a sign that this interview will be the one to work out!
At-bats have always been the name of the game. That's why if you're going to do something risky make sure you build the safety net
I’ve considered some form of grad school a few times, but I always came to the conclusion there just wasn’t enough value in it for a software engineer like me. I don’t plan on teaching, and I’m not really interested in the “science” of computer science so much as the practice of it. Anyone able to validate or challenge my assumptions here?
This St Peterburg paradox. I've just learnt it from Veritasium's last video.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox
This is also the strategy of groups trying to pass oppressive legislation.
This is a great approach! After every opportunity that closed on me another arose, and it always was the better one.
Through these experiences I totally agree, and try to apply it to life, but it's hard, even knowing that it's true. How cool is it for every college, person, job offer, scholarship to want you?
Even though we're looking just for "the one" it's very hard for me to mitigate the feeling of getting rejected, even knowing it was not "the one". Rejection generally hurts, when you care about the goal
Reminds me of AlphaGo
It didn't try to maximise by how much it won, but just that it won. Apparently it changed the meta for human pkayers.
If you have the time for it, the movie/doc is worth watching https://youtube.com/watch?v=WXuK6gekU1Y
I read this as: all you have to do is work out.
Right? I thought the article was going to be about how constructive having even a simple daily workout can be for mental health.
After reading the article, I like my version better.
Write it, then, and post it up here!
That's what it says.
On a much less optimistic dark humor note, this is the same argument in If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies about a superintelligent AI emerging and being a threat to humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_Anyone_Builds_It,_Everyone_...
This is also vividly demonstrated by life via evolution through natural selection.
Life had to spark only once, leading to the subsequent explosion in variety and complexity.
That’s an aggressive problematic gambler mentality.
No it's not. Gambler's fallacy is "I just flipped tails so heads is more likely now". I read this article as "heads has a 50% chance of coming up so I'll get one eventually" (which is true - law of large numbers).
I think none of those blanket statements here work.
Really it's just odds of finding success vs effort / time spent. And whether that's worth it.
Any of the blanket statements could be true depending on what the exact odds are.
There could be near 0% chance of finding success and it would be better idea to rethink and spend time elsewhere, or yes, there's 10% chance of finding success and it's significant enough that trying 20 times is enough.
If we are talking about e.g. finding a house, if you are not finding any it could very well be that your expectations vs budget is unlikely to find anything and you have to reconsider strategy.
Someone could be repeatedly trying to find work, and thinking it's just a matter of time, but really time would be better spent on improving their strategy, resume, or other means.
These statements to me seem like motivational non-sense which misrepresent how real world works or what the patterns really are like. At best they just give someone a false understanding of how the world works, at worst they make someone spend all their time in the wrong direction.
The difference is that if I apply for 10 jobs at once or put a bid in for 10 houses hoping one will succeed, I’ve lost nothing for trying 10 times.
If I gamble and try 10 times and win once - I have probably lost money.
Even if I interview 10 times and fail 9, I’ve learned something from each interview and I’ve gotten better. That’s also not true from rolling dice.
When the outcome is positive, I see nothing wrong. Especially if you lose basically nothing in trying.
Your time, energy, etc are not nothing. If you think like that, you have already lost and are not making optimal decisions.
The way I read this is that there are many "games" in life (applying for schools, jobs, dating, etc) where the odds of "winning" each instance are not in your favor, but you only need to win once to win overall. If you treat every absence of a positive outcome as a failure, then you're inevitably going to lose hope and give up.
This is in contrast to gambling where you actually do need to win more often than not to win overall.
That counter-argument is only valid if you actually had other things to do.
If the alternative to send to yet another university application is to start a new match of CoD then it wasn't a loss.
Is it ? In gambling your odds are fixed, but in real life, wouldn't you get better at solving problems with each iteration ?
Depends - are you meaningfully trying to improve or do you keep doing the same thing over and over not getting it?
Indeed. "Just one more roll of the dice and I'll be ahead."
Worse, this guy isn't trying to get a job. He's just trying to get into grad school. Which is no longer a guarantee of a good career, but may be a guarantee of a big debt. Remember that "I did everything right" post on HN a few weeks ago? CS degree from a good school, but nobody wants junior CS people any more.
Yep, heard so many no’s while building my startup. They mean nothing to me now because I got a few yes’s when it mattered.
And its always the last one you try. Just like every lost item is found in the last place you look :-)
Purely poetic advice. If the local economy collapses, you will very much want to move. There's still a 50% chance the first spouse doesn't hold up until death. There are many schools that give out degrees that aren't worth a wooden frame in today's job market.
I basically repeated the same thing to my wife when I was transitioning into software engineering. It’s so true!
Maybe you need only one. I need universal adoration! Everyone must love me!
The corollary to this is "keep walking"... As my mom always tells me.
If you are going through hell etc.
It took me an embarrassingly long time to realize this wasn’t about exercising.
I think it would be better if it were about exercising; it's more useful advise that way.
So, all it takes is for you to work out: You may not get into that grad school / that job, but you'll be healthier and you'll feel less depressed. In fact, even if you're in grad school, it's pretty good advice for coping avoiding burnout, coping with impostor syndrome etc.
The problem is that the opportunity you need might be a 1 in 100 lifetimes opportunity...
These days once in a lifetime opportunities are getting increasingly rare... This is something that the lucky few do not understand because they may pass up on once-in-100-lifetimes opportunities just about every single day. The asymmetry of opportunities is massive.
Our system is not a level playing field.
No system in the history of humanity has wasted as much human potential as our current system. Opportunities are completely monopolized.
You don't need to buy a lottery ticket every day, you just need to buy one on the day you get the winning ticket.
Thanks for the tip buddy!
> You don’t need every job to choose you. You just need the one that’s the right fit.
You mean, the first one to say yes. Tbh seems more like first to say yes, not first to be fit and say yes.
> You don’t need every house to accept your offer. You just need the one that feels like home.
Same here. Is easy to find one to say yes. Hard to be “feels like home” && say yes.
> You don’t need every person to want to build a life with you. You just need the one.
“The one” is hard.
>You don’t need ten universities to say yes. You just need the one that opens the right door.
Same. What even means “the right door”? How can you even know before you got in?
I think it’s a bad analogy. At least frame it a more realistic: your only need one job to say yes. Might not be the right job but it’s a job. Same for all other.
all I need is one SaaS to work out, I've built five of them this year, the fifth one is the one though, I promise.
This is what I keep telling my son even though he is still a bit too young:
Here in Bay Area, in Silicon Valley, all you need is to try hard and get lucky once.
A (possible) restatement of the oft quoted "They have to be lucky all the time, we only have to be lucky once" (albeit only the second half)
It also takes just one big mistake to really make things tougher…
I agree with his sentiments and his examples. But my fear is that on a place like Hacker News, people might not understand the difference between his advice and trying to have a successful startup.
>You don’t need every job to choose you. You just need the one that’s the right fit.
When I’m applying for a job, I can apply for multiple jobs at once and interview for multiple jobs over a a few weeks. It’s especially easy when I am both interviewing and working remotely. I don’t have to make excuses to leave work during the middle of the day or worse case fly out for an interview.
The same is true for buying a home, I can put bids in for multiple homes - or in my case just have my homes built in 2003 and 2016. I know the world is different now.
>You don’t need every person to want to build a life with you. You just need the one.
This is one place where of course you can shoot your shot at multiple potential partners and date often. What you don’t want to do is try marriage multiple times if it can be avoided. A bad marriage will wreck every part of your life and a divorce will set you back financially. (Happily remarried for 15 years after a horrible first marriage.)
None of his examples are applicable to starting a business. 9/10 startups fail and even out of those that “succeed” only a small number of those have an outsized return for the founder where they wouldn’t be better off financially working a regular old enterprise dev job for those years let alone getting a job at BigTech.
VCs can make multiple bets at one time and be more assured that they capture the 1/10 startups that succeed than a founder.
There is a huge difference between being able to take multiple chances at once in all of those scenarios and being stuck with the 1/10 choices you make for multiple years.
Great article and a timely reminder for many :)
Applicable not just for grad school applications, but also to job apps, startups, and relationships.
Hang in there y'all, all it takes is for one to work out. Keep working hard, kings & queens.
Beautiful piece and reminder.
If you're never done growing, you're never done peaking, nor ever really done trying.
One working out can lead to the next way.
Wishing everyone well who this piece resonated with.
Why are so many people in this thread purposefully misinterpreting the post so they can criticize it? The author obviously doesn't mean you only need one thing per domain to work out in your lifetime, but the present. I.e you don't need two girlfriends at once, even though you might have multiple relationships throughout your life...
Sheesh. HN is grumpy today.
While it’s true that all we need is one to work out, in general we strive to be in positions where we have multiple options, not just hinging everything on one passing chance. Life is less stressful that way, and that’s why people today feel like they are under so much pressure and have little choice over how their lives unfold.
Another saying i repeat to myself, which if gotten from a friend.
You have already lost, you can only win.
Needed this today. Apparently the HN hive mind agreed.
All it takes, is for one to work out.
"Is this where you stop?"
I'm confused. This just seems like feel-good bullshit advice that only works for people in extremely good circumstances.
There's a false equivalence between -
“All it takes is for one to work out.”
and the following:
- "You don’t need every job to choose you. You just need the one that’s the right fit."
- "You don’t need every house to accept your offer. You just need the one that feels like home. "
The latter assumes that _every_ attempt you make has a chance at being "the right fit", "the one that feels like home". That is not the way things works for 99% of us.
Unless you interpret 'working out' as being 'the right fit', then it comes together pretty nicely
[dead]