phillryu

Ah ok yeah I see where you're coming from there. It's kind of like the question of did Steve Jobs need to be an asshole to be as successful as he was. And it can be tempting to think that they are intrinsically linked, but I also like to believe there is a world where he grew more on the empathy side but was still able to lead Apple perhaps even better.

You could be right, but in the hypothetical world where he's 100% right, and the current path the project or feature is taking is heading towards a dead end or is broken in some way. I feel there is a real cost that can be more easily ignored, e.g. working on a dead end or slowly failing thing that isn't set on the right trajectory is ultimately demoralizing and ends up in hindsight having been an opportunity cost and waste of your time vs. working on something else. And conversely if he's right about something like this, there should be positive feedback when it is turned around and starts performing better for the team involved?

Trying to understand what you're saying, especially with 'let's fix that right there'.

Is it basically the idea that the good we've gotten out of it (like driving down extreme poverty) has required 'social democracy' as another concept or force, to bend capitalism towards something better? And that a more useful perspective is zooming out from just capitalism by itself to include that?

I do feel like I still have a pretty limited understanding of how all of this fits together, so I appreciate you trying to teach me something here.

For me Ted Chiang short stories are like a little trip in a story form. He's not the most rounded storyteller in atmosphere or dialogue and rich characters, but the central idea he's interested in exploring in each story often blows my mind, and that seems like his end goal, like breaking open the boxes we're stuck inside a little bit. He seems satisfied if he's able to reach that destination concisely.

Yeah but the burden is now on you to sift through the garbage to find the good stuff, especially since it's mostly mixed together in recommendations or search results etc. It feels more limited to me the other way around, like yes we have added some more good stuff, but good luck finding it.

If my favorite hobby store kept on expanding and expanding and the ratio of great stuff to garbage kept going down, I would definitely perceive the overall quality as being well into some death spiral.

Oh ok. It looks like as a small business we use Gusto, so that's been useful for us. But it's kind of strange to me they had such a string of big B2C successes early on and then that side evaporated entirely.

The B2B stuff seems like things YC companies can just sell each other and make startup pain points easier, like pick axe stuff that doesn't require as much original vision or as much risk.

I have heard of that one, and I guess to be fair looking at the list again I've heard of OpenSea a few times too as an NFT marketplace. Just not the target customer I guess, I am not a developer (or into NFTs).

I'm surprised I don't recognize a single one of these companies. Isn't YC most famous for companies like AirBNB, Reddit, Twitch, Instacart, Dropbox, Doordash, etc. all things I use and that broke into pop culture? Or is that entirely from pre-Altman era and now it's just all tools for developers?

This is more about back in its peak, but E3 used to gather all the gamer's attention to a single keynote, it was like the Super Bowl of gaming. Basically if your game was on stage/shown off well it would be covered by every single gaming press and magazine and almost guaranteed mainstream gaming culture hype.

Today Geoff Keighley's Video Game Awards basically took over that role and similarly is the single biggest stage/audience to announce a new game to. If you had a game that they were interested in revealing + you thought it would sparkle to its audience it's a powerful platform.

I think the question is more like could a great team produce the next FIFA AND the next Call of Duty due to some kind of process improvement? I don't know, maybe there are hugely inefficient processes right now, but the sorcery of the art, to find 'the fun' of a new game concept or formula still feels very mysterious and ambiguous. Of course most games are just building on existing formulas of fun, but then you need a fresh edge to fight the established incumbent of the genre.

And if you found this secret process or meta formula for coming up with new amazing game formulas, why not just keep it to yourself to build the most spectacularly successful game studio in history. (Maybe that's Nintendo? Blizzard at its best also has some magic touch on any new genre they touch, even where they mess up like Overwatch they end up making and taking down the entire genre with them.)

I dunno, maybe in ten years game development will be like some automated AI windtunnel/R&D lab remixing various game genres and formulas and spitting out new fun things. But I like that there is a sorcery to it for now that elevates human creativity over process.

I think my main point was more that despite what you (not you personally, anyone reading) think of Elon, at least he has this track record of visionary companies and Sam does not.

Personally my take on Elon is something like this – he found a vacuum in the industry of smart engineers who want to work on something truly ambitious, the kind of people who feel most SV startups are bullshit. And as a sci-fi nerd he came in with money and pitched several sci-fi ambitious project ideas/visions that attracted these engineers etc. to make them happen. And I think he was rewarded for this. You could tally that as another vision that he had that was onto something.