Entrepreneurshit? Please.(blog.davidkatz.me)
blog.davidkatz.me
Entrepreneurshit? Please.
http://blog.davidkatz.me/post/36010138674/entrepreneurshit-please
16 comments
Fair point Mark, I do not know you. Even though my post may come across as aggressive, that wasn't my intent. I'm just getting started with blogging, and next time I'll have to be more careful with my language. Apologies.
I agree that VC funding is not the only path to stressful business, although it certainly helps a lot. In this sense, VC is a part of a larger problem - people's tendency to take on more risk than they should. I dare say that if more people lived and did business within their means, we'd all be calmer, have less bankruptcies, and maybe even less divorces.
It is very easy to read your post and come away with the feeling that being an entrepreneur is necessarily stressful, and that just isn't the case. It starts being stressful when you can't meet your obligations, and that mostly happens when your ability to meet your obligations is heavily dependent on circumstances you can't control - circumstances like relying on outside money.
Is VC better than loans from family? Most definitely, because by taking money from someone who fully appreciates their potential losses, everyone gets to be less emotional about the whole thing.
Still, I believe that by not taking any outside money, or extracting a heavy price from yourself, you get a shot at a significantly calmer variant of Entrepreneurship, and that's something people should know.
I agree that VC funding is not the only path to stressful business, although it certainly helps a lot. In this sense, VC is a part of a larger problem - people's tendency to take on more risk than they should. I dare say that if more people lived and did business within their means, we'd all be calmer, have less bankruptcies, and maybe even less divorces.
It is very easy to read your post and come away with the feeling that being an entrepreneur is necessarily stressful, and that just isn't the case. It starts being stressful when you can't meet your obligations, and that mostly happens when your ability to meet your obligations is heavily dependent on circumstances you can't control - circumstances like relying on outside money.
Is VC better than loans from family? Most definitely, because by taking money from someone who fully appreciates their potential losses, everyone gets to be less emotional about the whole thing.
Still, I believe that by not taking any outside money, or extracting a heavy price from yourself, you get a shot at a significantly calmer variant of Entrepreneurship, and that's something people should know.
Mark, David, respect for you both.
Mark, the method David says, purely bootstrapped, keep your day job until its profitable, no outside investors even family.... is the safer road and avoids many of the pitfalls you outline. Of course, you still have to worry about the market changing, losing a client, your cost structure vs your competitors, and the like. All the things that your current boss worries about, you get to inherit.
But also the VC, angel, or other investor method gives you cash up front to put off some worries on day 1, but as Mark says, when you hire someone, you have to look them in the face knowing you only have 6 months cash in the bank.
With the bootstrap method, you only have 1 week cash in the bank.
Both can be stressful. I guess having other people depending on you besides yourself is less stressful in some ways, but also less (0) chance of a home run exit.
Mark, the method David says, purely bootstrapped, keep your day job until its profitable, no outside investors even family.... is the safer road and avoids many of the pitfalls you outline. Of course, you still have to worry about the market changing, losing a client, your cost structure vs your competitors, and the like. All the things that your current boss worries about, you get to inherit.
But also the VC, angel, or other investor method gives you cash up front to put off some worries on day 1, but as Mark says, when you hire someone, you have to look them in the face knowing you only have 6 months cash in the bank.
With the bootstrap method, you only have 1 week cash in the bank.
Both can be stressful. I guess having other people depending on you besides yourself is less stressful in some ways, but also less (0) chance of a home run exit.
Stress is created whenever available resources are less than needed resources. This happens in VC funded startups as well as bootstrapped startups.
Knowing that progress on your startup is slowed because of having to keep a day job creates its own unique type of stress.
Knowing that progress on your startup is slowed because of having to keep a day job creates its own unique type of stress.
@msuster I can understand how you found the title of the post disrespectful to you but I think he might have been going for the "Bitch Please" meme [1] rather than any actual intention to be disrespectful.
You're a well known and well respected entrepreneur turned VC (as opposed to VCs that have never seen the pain of being an entrepreneur themselves) so I doubt that anyone is going to take the "bitch please" part too seriously.
Ofcourse not being at the receiving end of that post maybe my perspective is different and I'd react similarly.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=bitch+please+meme&hl=en&...
You're a well known and well respected entrepreneur turned VC (as opposed to VCs that have never seen the pain of being an entrepreneur themselves) so I doubt that anyone is going to take the "bitch please" part too seriously.
Ofcourse not being at the receiving end of that post maybe my perspective is different and I'd react similarly.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=bitch+please+meme&hl=en&...
How could he not think you're talking about VC funded entrepreneurs only. Some selections:
"we have closed $150 million in our 4th fund...now you know why I’ve had many nights away, many airports and much time on the road."
"Raise money. Need money. More money. Yes, please give me money. "
"I mean you never know if your investors are REALLY going to keep backing you. "
"If I told my VCs would they then lose interest in our next round? "
Your slides are from Seedcon which is all about VC.
Almost nothing about making money from paying customers. Almost no worry about if customers are really going to keep backing you, or keep interested. Almost entirely about keeping VCs happy.
"we have closed $150 million in our 4th fund...now you know why I’ve had many nights away, many airports and much time on the road."
"Raise money. Need money. More money. Yes, please give me money. "
"I mean you never know if your investors are REALLY going to keep backing you. "
"If I told my VCs would they then lose interest in our next round? "
Your slides are from Seedcon which is all about VC.
Almost nothing about making money from paying customers. Almost no worry about if customers are really going to keep backing you, or keep interested. Almost entirely about keeping VCs happy.
I will have to agree with you (Mark) on this one. I was at the the U of C talk and you repeated that line multiple times. I don't know what the OP would assume you were only talking about VC's only. Apparently he doesn't like people giving honest advice!
Contrary to what other people say, I thoroughly enjoyed your article. I also think that the title is very much apt. Others - If you've been following the alternate universe of online memes, "bitch please" is a very famous meme used to indicate controversy [1] and this title exactly fits the article.
Please don't justify things on your blog for what other people think about the title or your article, we live in a free world and we are free to speak out our minds without justifying or being bullied by anyone else.
Really, it's a great article. Thank you very much for writing.
[1]http://www.troll.me/images/yao-ming/bitch-please.jpg
Please don't justify things on your blog for what other people think about the title or your article, we live in a free world and we are free to speak out our minds without justifying or being bullied by anyone else.
Really, it's a great article. Thank you very much for writing.
[1]http://www.troll.me/images/yao-ming/bitch-please.jpg
Thanks! Turns out not everyone knows/accepts the meme use of 'Bitch Please'. Since I didn't want the discussion to gravitate towards the title, I changed it.
> I also think that the title is very much apt.
I did too, as in Suster's post this is responding too, he links to a concept he calls 'conference ho'. Its interesting that both that post and this one have a misogynistic language element.
I did too, as in Suster's post this is responding too, he links to a concept he calls 'conference ho'. Its interesting that both that post and this one have a misogynistic language element.
It's interesting, given the amount of rants on "sexist language" on HN, that people here are so accepting to usage of "bitch please"/"conference ho".
What are you are trying to accomplish with this response to Mark Suster's blog post? (honest question)
To me, the original post came across as encouragement to all the founders who feel like they are the only ones busting their butts and still feel stuck.
I felt this particular excerpt from your blog post though was a bit unfair to Suster:
> Suster (who’s a VC now) won’t take his own advice though, because:
> > Of course I do [want to be a founder again]! How could you not want to go back to it. It’s addicting. It’s an adrenaline rush like no other.
because in his post, he also says:
> Yet one day you wake up and you realize you can’t run as fast as the young guys. You can’t quite hit the 3-pointers as often. Yes, you have maturity that makes you a wiser player. But you realize that you can be more helpful as a coach.
And yes, I sleep better at night as a coach. And I’m happy as a VC.
"His advice" isn't for everyone to be a founder. I think it was just a pep talk, like: "If you feel like you're spinning your wheels going nowhere and everyone else is a rock star, don't worry, you're not alone. That's how everyone does it."
I don't know Mark or anyone he has invested in, nor am I particularly tied to him. However, it felt a little strong when you issued this warning:
> be careful around VCs like Suster, who’d love to give you heaps of money so you can get up at 4:50am and get a heart attack every time your money starts to run out.
Keep writing. I like your style and I think its great when people write. Just leaving my honest feedback as well because I felt some of the aggression was unwarranted.
To me, the original post came across as encouragement to all the founders who feel like they are the only ones busting their butts and still feel stuck.
I felt this particular excerpt from your blog post though was a bit unfair to Suster:
> Suster (who’s a VC now) won’t take his own advice though, because:
> > Of course I do [want to be a founder again]! How could you not want to go back to it. It’s addicting. It’s an adrenaline rush like no other.
because in his post, he also says:
> Yet one day you wake up and you realize you can’t run as fast as the young guys. You can’t quite hit the 3-pointers as often. Yes, you have maturity that makes you a wiser player. But you realize that you can be more helpful as a coach.
And yes, I sleep better at night as a coach. And I’m happy as a VC.
"His advice" isn't for everyone to be a founder. I think it was just a pep talk, like: "If you feel like you're spinning your wheels going nowhere and everyone else is a rock star, don't worry, you're not alone. That's how everyone does it."
I don't know Mark or anyone he has invested in, nor am I particularly tied to him. However, it felt a little strong when you issued this warning:
> be careful around VCs like Suster, who’d love to give you heaps of money so you can get up at 4:50am and get a heart attack every time your money starts to run out.
Keep writing. I like your style and I think its great when people write. Just leaving my honest feedback as well because I felt some of the aggression was unwarranted.
What I'm trying to accomplish is this - pieces like 'Entrepreneurshit' perpetuate the myth that starting a business is a risky, stressful endeavour.
When I said 'be careful around VCs like Suster', I didn't actually mean anything about Suster in particular. I'm sure Suster is a great guy, and that he does his best to help entrepreneurs succeed.
You need to be careful with VCs like you need to be careful with casinos. Both enable you to take higher risks than you usually would. Sometimes you'll want high risk, and that's fine, but don't get blinded into thinking that it's the only way.
When I said 'be careful around VCs like Suster', I didn't actually mean anything about Suster in particular. I'm sure Suster is a great guy, and that he does his best to help entrepreneurs succeed.
You need to be careful with VCs like you need to be careful with casinos. Both enable you to take higher risks than you usually would. Sometimes you'll want high risk, and that's fine, but don't get blinded into thinking that it's the only way.
Your whole argument is a straw man though. I don't think anybody is suggesting that the only type of businesses are VC backed businesses.
Starting a high-growth startup is a risky, stressful endeavor. If you want to start a business that is not high-growth that is bootstrapped and grows slow but steady, great! That can result in an awesome financial outcome for you personally. Some people enjoy chasing hyper-growth and the risks that go with it, that doesn't make the OPs post wrong, it just means it applies to a different type of business and a different type of entrepreneur.
Starting a high-growth startup is a risky, stressful endeavor. If you want to start a business that is not high-growth that is bootstrapped and grows slow but steady, great! That can result in an awesome financial outcome for you personally. Some people enjoy chasing hyper-growth and the risks that go with it, that doesn't make the OPs post wrong, it just means it applies to a different type of business and a different type of entrepreneur.
You're absolutely right - there are different types of businesses that fit different types of entrepreneurs, and that's exactly what Suster fails to capture. By reading his post, you could easily walk away with the feeling that entrepreneur = stress.
i think you make an important point: the entrepreneur myth that techcrunch/si valley perpetuate is not reality. and people who have gone through it (raising money etc, raising hand high here) often choose an alternative path. although i know i could raise money for matchist (new endeavor) im consciously making the decision to bootstrap to avoid this kind of stress/lifestyle. entrepreneurship is what you make it...entrepreneurshit is the myth
It's a good thing some people actually shoot for the stars so that they build platforms that enable people like you who don't like to gamble to build small profitable apps living a healthy lifestyle.
If nobody shot for the stars, we would be stuck at the stone age.
I call VC-istan bullshit.
Why exactly does building enabling IT platforms (let alone other technological advancements) require multiple rounds of funding from outside investors and a pathological focus on growth with no regard for sustainable structures and profitability?
Why exactly does building enabling IT platforms (let alone other technological advancements) require multiple rounds of funding from outside investors and a pathological focus on growth with no regard for sustainable structures and profitability?
I find this entirely unpersuasive. Most of the things that are getting funded by VCs are not shoot-for-the-stars world-changers. Look at the list of recent funding announcements:
http://www.crunchbase.com/funding-rounds?page=1
Mobile-PC syncing of videos. Mobile-PC syncing of contacts. A way to save your child's artwork. Yet another payment solution. Yet another e-signature solution. Fine businesses, I'm sure, but nothing that's worth dying for.
The Silicon Valley hype cycle creates a lot of unnecessary drama. I can agree with you a little, in that people doing big things will sometimes experience big drama. But too many people, VCs included, work that equation backwards: big drama is a great indicator of doing big things!
As far as I can tell, most of the drama is just macho idiocy.
http://www.crunchbase.com/funding-rounds?page=1
Mobile-PC syncing of videos. Mobile-PC syncing of contacts. A way to save your child's artwork. Yet another payment solution. Yet another e-signature solution. Fine businesses, I'm sure, but nothing that's worth dying for.
The Silicon Valley hype cycle creates a lot of unnecessary drama. I can agree with you a little, in that people doing big things will sometimes experience big drama. But too many people, VCs included, work that equation backwards: big drama is a great indicator of doing big things!
As far as I can tell, most of the drama is just macho idiocy.
I don't see the author saying otherwise anywhere.
Before the haters flag this like yesterday: read the damn post. There's a reason for the acerbic title, and it has absolutely zero to do with denigration of females.
Is anyone tired of the PC brigade shitting on everything?
"Bitch Please" is a response to when someone says something stupid. A man or a woman can say this stupid thing. The phrase works just fine either way. The fact this was one guy responding to a blog post made by another guy further reenforces this.
It's tiring hearing this stuff so often. Its like the Ruby Conference news yesterday.. turns out the best speakers available for this event were white guys. Well, they are either misogynists or racists.. probably both!
Today.. people feel we need to protect and/or distance ourselves from a call of sexism before it is even made. Its a sad state of affairs.
"Bitch Please" is a response to when someone says something stupid. A man or a woman can say this stupid thing. The phrase works just fine either way. The fact this was one guy responding to a blog post made by another guy further reenforces this.
It's tiring hearing this stuff so often. Its like the Ruby Conference news yesterday.. turns out the best speakers available for this event were white guys. Well, they are either misogynists or racists.. probably both!
Today.. people feel we need to protect and/or distance ourselves from a call of sexism before it is even made. Its a sad state of affairs.
it has absolutely zero to do with denigration of females.
Kind of annoyed this needs to be pointed out, even though I know exactly why you did it.
Kind of annoyed this needs to be pointed out, even though I know exactly why you did it.
The author updated his title- perhaps we can, too?
I agree. Is the original author a "hater" for thoughtfully removing b----?
(Just like it would be inappropriate to see n-----. It's unnecessary and easy to edit out.)
(Just like it would be inappropriate to see n-----. It's unnecessary and easy to edit out.)
You can't seriously be comparing B* to N*.
No he's comparing the annoying way to censor yourself, while making everybody else read it in their head. It's not very responsible.
"You're a b." You read it aloud in your head right?
"You're a b." You read it aloud in your head right?
It helps trigger people less. As one affected person told me, it's a bit like making a violent movie, where you can either allude to the violence or show the gore outright. Really there should be no difference (or maybe alluding could theoretically be worse), but there really is a visceral difference. And I've verified this with others.
So I do it. Good to assimilate improvements to the way you do things. Better than people who stubbornly keep doing things the old way. I see this all the time in programming, in business... I'm used to people who fight self-improvement, and try to form friendships with those who don't. Why is it better to argue about it and keep screwing up, rather than simply take a sec to edit a bit of text?
So I do it. Good to assimilate improvements to the way you do things. Better than people who stubbornly keep doing things the old way. I see this all the time in programming, in business... I'm used to people who fight self-improvement, and try to form friendships with those who don't. Why is it better to argue about it and keep screwing up, rather than simply take a sec to edit a bit of text?
I had a conversation similar to this regarding the word 'nigger'. Apparently, I took the wrong stance that we're going nowhere by continuing to "Shit our pants" whenever the word comes out just because the history behind it is ugly. Not once did I suggest that it's not an offensive term, because it is; but instead that it's only offensive now because we continue to give it power.
Sure, it's an ugly word but the sun hasn't exploded yet from anyone calling anyone by that word, not in 200 years. So why do we still demonize it?
Sure, it's an ugly word but the sun hasn't exploded yet from anyone calling anyone by that word, not in 200 years. So why do we still demonize it?
It triggers some people, like b----. Also, saying b---- helps normalize sexism, already an obvious problem in the men's club of software. You can see this phenomenon in action among the more overtly sexist people emboldened to put people down.
I go to tech conferences and usually the only females are wives, waitstaff and salespeople. In Ruby talks, I've seen pictures of objectified, near-naked (even fully naked) females. You can support this, but I'm not.
We don't live in some egalitarian utopia. If we did, those words might be quaint. As it is, there's loads of gender violence and injustice. If you don't agree, fine; that's why there's activism. (That recent Ruby conference maybe shouldn't have been cancelled, unless there's something I haven't heard about. But certainly it does show that it's possible to strike back against stubborn misogynists.)
I go to tech conferences and usually the only females are wives, waitstaff and salespeople. In Ruby talks, I've seen pictures of objectified, near-naked (even fully naked) females. You can support this, but I'm not.
We don't live in some egalitarian utopia. If we did, those words might be quaint. As it is, there's loads of gender violence and injustice. If you don't agree, fine; that's why there's activism. (That recent Ruby conference maybe shouldn't have been cancelled, unless there's something I haven't heard about. But certainly it does show that it's possible to strike back against stubborn misogynists.)
I wouldn't consider "bitch" a sexist word anymore as in common usage (at least the common usage I know, for the last 20 years) "bitch" can be directed at a guy or a girl.
I'm honestly and genuinely curious, I promise you this isn't snark, snide, cynicism, sarcasm or otherwise: what about the word "bitch" normalizes sexism?
You can't seriously be saying they don't compare.
That is exactly what I'm suggesting.
The word "bitch" can mean a female dog, it can refer to the act of complaining (i.e. "stop bitching, Ron"), an annoying person-male or female ("Man, Ron sure is acting like a complaining bitch" or "Wow, that Cheryl sure knows who to be a bitch"), a frowned upon act ("Ron that sure was a bitch move to sell out your coworkers like that"). The word bitch in its versatility doesn't serve to single out one group of people; it's used to describe a lot of things.
Now tell me how has the word 'nigger' been used and how people react to "Stop being a little nigger" versus "Stop being a little bitch"? Saying the two are one in the same is trying to force PC into an affair just so you can say you waved the PC flag by comparing one word to another when it doesn't work. Grow up and stop acting like someone's word choice somehow inhibits your ability to live a normal life.
The word "bitch" can mean a female dog, it can refer to the act of complaining (i.e. "stop bitching, Ron"), an annoying person-male or female ("Man, Ron sure is acting like a complaining bitch" or "Wow, that Cheryl sure knows who to be a bitch"), a frowned upon act ("Ron that sure was a bitch move to sell out your coworkers like that"). The word bitch in its versatility doesn't serve to single out one group of people; it's used to describe a lot of things.
Now tell me how has the word 'nigger' been used and how people react to "Stop being a little nigger" versus "Stop being a little bitch"? Saying the two are one in the same is trying to force PC into an affair just so you can say you waved the PC flag by comparing one word to another when it doesn't work. Grow up and stop acting like someone's word choice somehow inhibits your ability to live a normal life.
"friend", "person" (of any race), "black person who I look down on", for starters. The simple fact that the word is popular all over the Rap and Hip Hop scene suggests that its racial connotation is not the only meaning for it anymore.
The reaction is far more swift and severe than it is for the word "bitch", however. Unless you can show me otherwise.
That is true for most environments, but not necessarily all of them. I was going to bring up examples, but I found it funny that the only ones I thought of were probably NSFW. The work environment isn't really a place for either though.
The only entrepreneur I can relate to is the one spending their time coding, designing, and implementing ideas. None of which involves hopping on a plane.
What about dealing with customers? What about having to go visit big $500K/year customers to make sure they sign the contract like you are hoping they will?
Or the entrepreneur you can relate to doesn't have any customers?
Or the entrepreneur you can relate to doesn't have any customers?
I'm just going by the type of work that I do on a day-to-day basis. I personally can't relate to having to fly around to meet and greet with customers on that level.
There is nothing wrong with this, of course. Plenty of companies and entrepreneurs work this way. I am just not familiar with it.
There is nothing wrong with this, of course. Plenty of companies and entrepreneurs work this way. I am just not familiar with it.
[deleted]
I think you and I read a different article. What I got from Mark's piece was that entrepreneurship isn't all glitz and glamour like it's made out to be on the tech blogs and in the business magazines. It's hard work, and sometimes the chances of success look bleak.
My company did not seek venture funding, but I don't feel that changes the dynamic of Mark's post as it relates to me. There's something in there for everybody.
My company did not seek venture funding, but I don't feel that changes the dynamic of Mark's post as it relates to me. There's something in there for everybody.
It isn't all glitz and glamour, and people should know that. However, my issue with the article is not the 'it's not all glitz and glamour' but the 'it's shitty, you never see your family, you're constantly stressed, and your chances suck'. That is discouraging, and totally unnecessary.
If you're going to do high risk/high gain, it's warranted and good advice. But to imply that this is what entrepreneurship is like is unfortunate.
If you're going to do high risk/high gain, it's warranted and good advice. But to imply that this is what entrepreneurship is like is unfortunate.
He deals primarily in the high risk/high gain market though. I think if you asked Mark he would say a business that lets you make just what you need -- a lifestyle business -- isn't a bad thing at all. The people that want to start a high risk business and raise money to help them swing for the fences should be prepared for some stress though. Those people are his audience. I don't think he meant that simply choosing a path of entrepreneurship means that everyone will have this experience.
You're probably right, but he should have chosen his words more carefully. It's very easy to misunderstand him and conclude that starting a business is inevitably going to be shitty.
While there are many scenarios in which things come easy, I've yet to find myself involved in one. I've either had to build on the side while working full-time, or work 60 hour weeks, nights and weekends, in order to keep money coming in. In either case, while I've not been sleeping in hotels, I've seen much less of my family than I'd like. I think it's equally dangerous to purport that entrepreneurship is simple and easy going. That's the same myth that make money entrepreneurs/bloggers promote in order to sell ebooks.
Fair point. It wasn't my intent to make it sound easy, and I should have been more careful with my language. What I wanted to communicate is this - Entrepreneurship can be stressful, but it doesn't have to be, and the kind of business you aim for has a large impact on how stressful it is.
That I can definitely agree with. I think you'd have less haters if you left out the 'bitch please' portion of the argument.
Sound advice, I'm still figuring out how to blog well. I think that some controversy (=haters) can be a good thing, and hope to strike a better balance in the future.
Suster's article seems to say that sometimes it is glitz and glamour but sometimes there is also stress and suffering.
In reality, most entrepreneur experiences are frankly boring. It's just a lot of hard, sensible work mostly in a job that isn't terribly exciting to describe to strangers with growing financial stability along the way with maybe a few scary bumps in the road. Most software startups are more comparable to a food cart or the local nail salon than they are to nascent world-changing mega-corporations.
In reality, most entrepreneur experiences are frankly boring. It's just a lot of hard, sensible work mostly in a job that isn't terribly exciting to describe to strangers with growing financial stability along the way with maybe a few scary bumps in the road. Most software startups are more comparable to a food cart or the local nail salon than they are to nascent world-changing mega-corporations.
Don't really see what the point of the article is. Some entrepreneurs build try to build small/medium, moderately risky businesses, and that's fine. Some try to shoor for the stars, high risk/high return. That's fine too.
It is perfectly fine. However, by saying that 'being an entrepreneur is shitty' Suster makes his audience believe that this is just what it's like to start a business, and you better be prepared for it or leave it altogether. That's wrong, and potentially discouraging to someone who is considering starting a business.
If Suster had written a post about the stress of VC funded startups, I'd have no beef at all.
If Suster had written a post about the stress of VC funded startups, I'd have no beef at all.
[deleted]
Your post make it sound like entrepreneurship is all about money. Especially statements like: "Only quit your day job once you’ve found something that works, and before you know it, you’ll have a good income and a good life with little risk and little stress.".
When you want to build the next big thing, to change the World, etc., not simply to gain some income, building a high growth / high stress startup may be necessary.
When you want to build the next big thing, to change the World, etc., not simply to gain some income, building a high growth / high stress startup may be necessary.
on the title: "bitch please" is a meme. I get that some people claim the word is sexist, etc, but I like the meme and Randall Munroe's "Science: it works, bitches!" too much to let them go - as (Randall) explained later, it's usage here is as a gender-neutral sympathetic term. (alas, I can't find the source for his justification.)
on the title: "bitch please" is a meme.
"Bitch, please" has been a thing much longer than saying anything "is a meme" was itself a meme. This whole thing is drifting dangerously close to 'yo dawg' territory.
"Bitch, please" has been a thing much longer than saying anything "is a meme" was itself a meme. This whole thing is drifting dangerously close to 'yo dawg' territory.
There isn't one. Randall is wrong. It happens.
In terms of feminist theory, this is definitely true - perpetuation of sexism in language through slang and memes is undoubtedly harmful. (and theory aside, it's a matter of experimental record that language affects thought, to a certain extent.)
Sadly, my subjective brain still likes the ring of the phrases. "Science: it works, earthlings!" sounds just a little too geeky, and "humans!" doesn't seems to ring true either. And "Children, please..." irritates me from an age-discrimination perspective (I'm a firm believer that if we patronised our children less, I'm sure there'd be less extremism and fundamentalism in the world.)
curse my sexist, subjective brain! :/
Sadly, my subjective brain still likes the ring of the phrases. "Science: it works, earthlings!" sounds just a little too geeky, and "humans!" doesn't seems to ring true either. And "Children, please..." irritates me from an age-discrimination perspective (I'm a firm believer that if we patronised our children less, I'm sure there'd be less extremism and fundamentalism in the world.)
curse my sexist, subjective brain! :/
agreed. generally - and i found the title less offensive than the original. an apt response. :)
The original did remind me of this -
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=entremanure
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=entremanure
Thank you for this article. I personally feel that small teams (in most cases, one person) building high quality SaaS apps and creating a generous income ($100-300K/year) will become more common, and is more likely to "win" than the home run, VC model.
This seems to be nitpicking a bit. Many things have pros and cons, and whether they are right for you depends on your priorities and personal context. Entrepreneurship is not right for some people, but it is the only way for others.
"It's a meme" is the new "I'm not racist/sexist/homophobic, but..."
I've criticized Mark Suster, because he's all over the map in terms of the quality of what he says (this criticism could also be made of me) but I've come to admire his honesty.
Most Americans despise "politicians". They like their representatives, but have a negative view of elected officials, because the amount of bullshit (fundraising, campaigning) one has to put up with in exchange for the returns is so immense that the assumption is that no one would do it without an ego the size of Texas. The assumption is that politicians are either monstrously egotistical, or taking something out of society (speaking fees, "consulting" options for their kids) on the side that would justify the absurdity.
"Entrepreneurshit" reminds us that VC-istan startup founding isn't much different. There are some good Founders out there, but they're basically private-sector politicians. To be frank, I agree with this assessment. One caveat: if you're rich enough to own your own time and career (instead of having to rent them from a boss) then I think the entrepreneurial path is superior in long-term expectancy, and you can afford the variance. But in that scenario, I'd probably boot-strap. Multiple liquidation preferences and participating preferred are for strivers and poors, yo.
I don't know that client-powered, "bootstrapped" companies can claim moral superiority, either. Mad Men is a good depiction of the sociology of that world. The industries have changed; people, much less. Most of those firms are had by the balls by clients (losing a big client triggers an avalanche of pull-outs) and that's no better than being beholden to investors.
The contemporary "startup" ethos is admirable in many ways but it's also chock full of ridiculous and embarrassing contradictions-- meritocracy vs. the extreme importance of connections; "this will be big" vs. taking an acq-hire welfare check, "changing the world" vs. the patent absurdity of many "social media" companies-- and if we want it to be more than a self-devouring fad, we need to have a real conversation about what kind of leadership we need, as a society, whether we are getting what we want in terms of leaders (I honestly don't know) and, if not, what we should do to change that.
Most Americans despise "politicians". They like their representatives, but have a negative view of elected officials, because the amount of bullshit (fundraising, campaigning) one has to put up with in exchange for the returns is so immense that the assumption is that no one would do it without an ego the size of Texas. The assumption is that politicians are either monstrously egotistical, or taking something out of society (speaking fees, "consulting" options for their kids) on the side that would justify the absurdity.
"Entrepreneurshit" reminds us that VC-istan startup founding isn't much different. There are some good Founders out there, but they're basically private-sector politicians. To be frank, I agree with this assessment. One caveat: if you're rich enough to own your own time and career (instead of having to rent them from a boss) then I think the entrepreneurial path is superior in long-term expectancy, and you can afford the variance. But in that scenario, I'd probably boot-strap. Multiple liquidation preferences and participating preferred are for strivers and poors, yo.
I don't know that client-powered, "bootstrapped" companies can claim moral superiority, either. Mad Men is a good depiction of the sociology of that world. The industries have changed; people, much less. Most of those firms are had by the balls by clients (losing a big client triggers an avalanche of pull-outs) and that's no better than being beholden to investors.
The contemporary "startup" ethos is admirable in many ways but it's also chock full of ridiculous and embarrassing contradictions-- meritocracy vs. the extreme importance of connections; "this will be big" vs. taking an acq-hire welfare check, "changing the world" vs. the patent absurdity of many "social media" companies-- and if we want it to be more than a self-devouring fad, we need to have a real conversation about what kind of leadership we need, as a society, whether we are getting what we want in terms of leaders (I honestly don't know) and, if not, what we should do to change that.
Just enjoyed reading your thoughts on the topic. A nice change of pace compared to aggressive point, counter-point type of comments I normally see.
And many small startups have a much worse cash situation than those fueled by VC but your post fails to consider that. Many of them have loans, sibling / parent money and the like. It's actually much harder on them.
Or how about physical or retail businesses? I know many non-tech entrepreneurs who have gone through personal bankruptcy due to this. Including my own parents. Which led them to get divorced.
Bitch, you don't know me. Don't assume you do.