Conferences(avc.com)
avc.com
Conferences
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/05/conferences.html
37 comments
Timely for me as I'm missing TWTRCON (which costs $600!), but following the Twitter stream as I write this. Yup, conferences are great for networking especially for newbies like myself who don't have existing contacts in the industry. The best way for newbies to go about it though is to find all the free or inexpensive conferences available, or offer to volunteer. At least in the Bay Area, there's no shortage of opportunities. I'm volunteering at two in exchange for attendance, and have another four lined up that are free or under $25. The BarCamp movement and related is great for tech newbies and really speak to unbannable's points above.
You can also just go hang out in the lobby for free at most of them -- if you don't care for the talks, that's just as good.
I can't help but say this out loud. "Fred is my kind of man!".
I really feel that most of conferences are power games and I am just averse to power games. Maybe I am antisocial. But I believe doing the good work first then people will follow it. If luckily people likes it and adopt it, it is wonderful recognition. If unfortunately no one likes it, then I have to do it again with a twist keep experimenting. But whether recognition is bestowed, I do things because I like what I am doing. Life is never easy and it should be never easy.
And the cool people are always outsiders, no matter in tech or arts.
I really feel that most of conferences are power games and I am just averse to power games. Maybe I am antisocial. But I believe doing the good work first then people will follow it. If luckily people likes it and adopt it, it is wonderful recognition. If unfortunately no one likes it, then I have to do it again with a twist keep experimenting. But whether recognition is bestowed, I do things because I like what I am doing. Life is never easy and it should be never easy.
And the cool people are always outsiders, no matter in tech or arts.
"So I avoid those most of all. Back in the 90s, I was unkown to the powers that be and could not get into TED. I don't forget that and that's why I'll never go to it. I don't want to play that game."
I don't know what the point of going to a conference is, if you can get videos of the talks afterwards, like TED.
Getting to talk to speakers, meeting people, swag.
Networking. Meeting people. It's very important in scientific research to present your research, see others' work and exchange ideas. Conferences are a good way to do it.
I guess hackers and programmers are quited used to doing this over the web, though.
I guess hackers and programmers are quited used to doing this over the web, though.
There is a huge difference between watching the talks and actually being there.
50% of the value is the content of the talks, which supposedly described the latest and greatest.
Just like in academia, the talks are actually dated: they have been prepared months before and don't really represent the latest. To know the latest, you need to chat with various people to find out what they are working on right now, that they can't quite announce yet.
What's on stage is canned, in a sense. If you want to be in, you got to be there in person to catch where the future is.
This has held true for me both in academia (research) and web 2.0.
50% of the value is the content of the talks, which supposedly described the latest and greatest.
Just like in academia, the talks are actually dated: they have been prepared months before and don't really represent the latest. To know the latest, you need to chat with various people to find out what they are working on right now, that they can't quite announce yet.
What's on stage is canned, in a sense. If you want to be in, you got to be there in person to catch where the future is.
This has held true for me both in academia (research) and web 2.0.
This may be true for TED (never been) but for most tech conferences I've spoken at the presenters are still putting together slides for their presentation right up until they talk. This tends to get the latest stuff in. Not to say I'm disagreeing with you -- quite the opposite, in fact. With rare exception, during most of the conferences I've been to the "hallway track" has been more valuable/informative.
Given that the talks are canned, and the materials they are based on are almost always published, why should I pay for a conference when I can already leverage existing networking/social channels to stay in touch with the latest?
It's hard to go out for a beer with someone who isn't in the same place that you are. And people will definitely tell you stuff over a beer or two that they won't write about in their blog.
You don't need a conference to go out for a beer, and you certainly don't need an exclusive conference to go out for a beer with someone interesting.
You do need a way to gather interesting people in one place, but you don't need a traditional conference (especially an expensive conference) to do so.
You do need a way to gather interesting people in one place, but you don't need a traditional conference (especially an expensive conference) to do so.
Participating. Talking to the people, exchanging ideas, having a beer with them, convincing them to do things your way because your ideas don't suck, and so on.
Conferences aren't so much about the presentations as what happens after the presentations.
Of course, this guy is a VC, and he's not so interested in the technical scene. He also seems to be talking about invitation only conferences, which are slightly silly.
Conferences aren't so much about the presentations as what happens after the presentations.
Of course, this guy is a VC, and he's not so interested in the technical scene. He also seems to be talking about invitation only conferences, which are slightly silly.
But even ostensibly open conferences can be difficult - I'm going to E3, and I made sure I could get dual credentialed as press just to make it easier for other people to talk to me. Some places are conferences just for the cool kids, but the cool kids still self-segregate at open places. That's why Wilson's so smart - he knows that's going to happen any way, so he only goes to places where his time won't be monopolized by the people he can talk to any other time.
[deleted]
I liked conferences a lot when I worked in a different industry. Now I'm immersed in web 2.blah and get enough of it at work. I mostly stopped going to stuff.
Going to conferences is good for feeding your EGO!
Invitation-only events don't belong in the technological scene.
There is an all-out, bitter war going on between property (connections, inherited wealth, resources) and energy (talent, ambition, hard work). One is past, one is future, and each wishes to demote the value of the other. One side has power but lacks the vision and talent to use it; the other has the capability but not the means.
Nerds are supposed to be on the side of the good guys.
There is an all-out, bitter war going on between property (connections, inherited wealth, resources) and energy (talent, ambition, hard work). One is past, one is future, and each wishes to demote the value of the other. One side has power but lacks the vision and talent to use it; the other has the capability but not the means.
Nerds are supposed to be on the side of the good guys.
There is an all-out, bitter war going on between property (connections, inherited wealth, resources) and energy (talent, ambition, hard work). One is past, one is future, and each wishes to demote the value of the other. One side has power but lacks the vision and talent to use it; the other has the capability but not the means.
Sounds suspiciously like Marxism. People with wealth and connections are the bad guys, while the struggling guy at the bottom is the good guy.
What's ironic is that a) many of the people at the top started out at the bottom and earned their way to the top, and b) those at the bottom are ultimately trying to cultivate the same things: wealth and connections.
I find it incredibly naive to think that we're at some turning point in history where suddenly the world is going to become some kind of meritocracy and the people who are just starting out will behave any differently once they make it than people have been behaving forever. I also find it humorous that you think that people at the top are basically just dumb, boring people who lack vision and talent, and who have only their inherited wealth and connections to keep them on top. Give me a break.
Sounds suspiciously like Marxism. People with wealth and connections are the bad guys, while the struggling guy at the bottom is the good guy.
What's ironic is that a) many of the people at the top started out at the bottom and earned their way to the top, and b) those at the bottom are ultimately trying to cultivate the same things: wealth and connections.
I find it incredibly naive to think that we're at some turning point in history where suddenly the world is going to become some kind of meritocracy and the people who are just starting out will behave any differently once they make it than people have been behaving forever. I also find it humorous that you think that people at the top are basically just dumb, boring people who lack vision and talent, and who have only their inherited wealth and connections to keep them on top. Give me a break.
Can we all just let go of the ridiculous cold-war era brain washing?
Claiming an idea is invalid because it "sounds suspiciously like (Marxism/Communism/Socialism/etc)" is an ad hominem. It's flawed thinking, a logical fallacy. When you do it, you're not effectively supporting your argument you're just revealing your own intellectual shallowness.
Claiming an idea is invalid because it "sounds suspiciously like (Marxism/Communism/Socialism/etc)" is an ad hominem. It's flawed thinking, a logical fallacy. When you do it, you're not effectively supporting your argument you're just revealing your own intellectual shallowness.
first, I did support my argument. second, I don't feel the need to disprove the same thing over and over. some theories are just wrong, and labeling them as such is not an ad hominem attack. do you feel the need to have an entire debate every time someone makes a case for young earth creationism. in my mind Marxism and YEC have about the same level of validity, which has been proven over and over; I feel no need to do so again.
that's just my opinion, and if you disagree, fine. but don't have a knee jerk reaction and assume that because I labelled something Marxist means I'm intellectually shallow.
that's just my opinion, and if you disagree, fine. but don't have a knee jerk reaction and assume that because I labelled something Marxist means I'm intellectually shallow.
Marxism and YEC have about the same level of validity
OK, but your reasoning is still flawed.
There is an all-out, bitter war going on between property (connections, inherited wealth, resources) and energy (talent, ambition, hard work)
If unbannable had used those ideas to underpin his arguments, attacking Marxism would make sense. But he doesn't. He just (sort of) shares one of Marx's observations & moral dispositions. Not everything that Marx claimed, observed, said or saw is disproved. To the extend that Marxism is disproved, it is the political or economic systems.
The same tactic is used by anti-evolutionists trying to draw a connection to Nazism.
This is a close cousin of a straw man. Straw man is a shallow argument.
OK, but your reasoning is still flawed.
There is an all-out, bitter war going on between property (connections, inherited wealth, resources) and energy (talent, ambition, hard work)
If unbannable had used those ideas to underpin his arguments, attacking Marxism would make sense. But he doesn't. He just (sort of) shares one of Marx's observations & moral dispositions. Not everything that Marx claimed, observed, said or saw is disproved. To the extend that Marxism is disproved, it is the political or economic systems.
The same tactic is used by anti-evolutionists trying to draw a connection to Nazism.
This is a close cousin of a straw man. Straw man is a shallow argument.
Sounds suspiciously like Marxism.
Is that a reason to dismiss? This may be a stumble on an idea that Marx would agree with, but noone is asking you to accept marxism wholesale.
'Sounds suspiciously like..', is a defensive way of thinking. It's wanting to know who's side you are on so you know what position to hold. It's almost like being afraid of being persuaded by argument.
Is that a reason to dismiss? This may be a stumble on an idea that Marx would agree with, but noone is asking you to accept marxism wholesale.
'Sounds suspiciously like..', is a defensive way of thinking. It's wanting to know who's side you are on so you know what position to hold. It's almost like being afraid of being persuaded by argument.
People with wealth and connections are the bad guys, while the struggling guy at the bottom is the good guy.
It's not that simple. There are people who have both wealth/connections and talent. There are good guys who are well-connected and wealthy.
The moral battleground is the exchange rate between these two fundamental commodities. Talent should trade very high against property, but often it doesn't. The good guys are those who are trying to make the exchange rate proper; the bad guys believe the talented exist only to serve those who are already powerful. So powerful people who use their resources to advance those who are talented are among the good guys.
It's not that simple. There are people who have both wealth/connections and talent. There are good guys who are well-connected and wealthy.
The moral battleground is the exchange rate between these two fundamental commodities. Talent should trade very high against property, but often it doesn't. The good guys are those who are trying to make the exchange rate proper; the bad guys believe the talented exist only to serve those who are already powerful. So powerful people who use their resources to advance those who are talented are among the good guys.
Yeah, it's not that simple. That's my whole point.
Also, can you provide some objective basis for the statement that talent should trade very high against "property"?
Also, can you provide some objective basis for the statement that talent should trade very high against "property"?
Those who want talent to trade highly against property are those who believe the best and most capable should be making the big decisions. They have the interest of humanity-at-large at heart.
Those who want the reverse are those who have power but lack talent, and their supporters.
Those who want the reverse are those who have power but lack talent, and their supporters.
How do you determine "best and most capable"?
One way to do so is to let people trade their talent for property that they use as they see fit. If they're good and not just lucky, they'll succeed again, getting more property over which to make decisions.
However, that method seems to be in conflict with "talent should trade highly against property".
> They have the interest of humanity-at-large at heart.
That's bullshit on stilts.
One way to do so is to let people trade their talent for property that they use as they see fit. If they're good and not just lucky, they'll succeed again, getting more property over which to make decisions.
However, that method seems to be in conflict with "talent should trade highly against property".
> They have the interest of humanity-at-large at heart.
That's bullshit on stilts.
Should?
Invitation-only events are not only for people with "property". They also allow those with "energy" to keep an event from being diluted by those without it. Why shouldn't a group of hackers be able to get together with people they choose? Wouldn't the YC weekly dinners fit this category?
I'm obviously a fan of HN and by proxy, YC... but to be a devil's advocate...
The people at the HN weekly meeting didn't choose to get together with each other, the rich guys who gave them money chose them and told them to be there.
In contrast, superhappydevhouse is open to anyone who shows up.
The people at the HN weekly meeting didn't choose to get together with each other, the rich guys who gave them money chose them and told them to be there.
In contrast, superhappydevhouse is open to anyone who shows up.
As one of the organizers for superhappydevhouse, one of my main goals is to keep it from ever becoming an invitation only event. I share a lot of sentiment that Fred Wilson expressed in his blog post.
As superhappydevhouse has grown in popularity and size, this has made finding venues more difficult, we've been extremely fortunate and have had many generous people open their homes and businesses to us.
The "dilution" issue that mellis mentions above has also been a concern, fortunately this hasn't been a difficult issue to address. All that we've needed to do so far is to explicitly state what sort of event we are holding ("A party for hackers and thinkers") as well as discouraging corporate self-promotion and recruiting.
As superhappydevhouse has grown in popularity and size, this has made finding venues more difficult, we've been extremely fortunate and have had many generous people open their homes and businesses to us.
The "dilution" issue that mellis mentions above has also been a concern, fortunately this hasn't been a difficult issue to address. All that we've needed to do so far is to explicitly state what sort of event we are holding ("A party for hackers and thinkers") as well as discouraging corporate self-promotion and recruiting.
[deleted]
I don't think TED is as hard to get into as it seems. You just need to have the $4,000, apply right after they open applications and make yourself sound interesting on your application.
> One side has power but lacks the vision and talent to use it; the other has the capability but not the means.
Classic sour grapes. Poor guy. In his universe the power fairies just wander around granting power to dolts. Meanwhile untapped capability just sits around wasted.
Newsflash. Folks with actual useful capability don't stay "propertyless" for long - they produce, which gets them property, which lets them do more, getting them more property, and so on. Yes, there's some luck, but the luckiest people are those who have the moxie to take advantage of the luck that comes their way and they make more.
Yes, some folks are born into money. If they're not capable, they lose it.
Classic sour grapes. Poor guy. In his universe the power fairies just wander around granting power to dolts. Meanwhile untapped capability just sits around wasted.
Newsflash. Folks with actual useful capability don't stay "propertyless" for long - they produce, which gets them property, which lets them do more, getting them more property, and so on. Yes, there's some luck, but the luckiest people are those who have the moxie to take advantage of the luck that comes their way and they make more.
Yes, some folks are born into money. If they're not capable, they lose it.
[deleted]