i'm curious, is your opinion based on research, or is it just fanciful extrapolations from a starting point of 'Facebook and google were started by young people'?
Because frankly, most of the ideas contained in your post don't seem like they actually stand up to scrutiny. For example, your idea that "kids don't see the limitations the market has placed upon us" only makes sense if you believe:
a) that young founders don't understand existing markets; and
b) that old founders can't imagine a world other than the existing world; and
c) a failure to understand existing markets creates an advantage; and
d) a failure to understand existing markets does not create an offsetting disadvantage; and
e) an understanding of existing markets does not create an advantage; and
f) an understanding of existing markets only creates disadvantages.
Do you have proof of any or all of these?
Your arbitrarily chosen metric for success was a huge ($10b+) exit. If we do that, only ONE of the ten largest IPOs was a young kid (Zuck at FB), and even there, he wasn't reimagining a market per your thesis, he was doing something entirely new.
I really, really wish HN had a way to flag 'eloquently stated bullshit', because it's dangerous when people like you open their mouths. You confidently and eloquently say shit that's just totally fucking wrong, and you make everyone dumber. It feeds your ego and it kills the world. Fucking shut your dumb mouth.
Because frankly, most of the ideas contained in your post don't seem like they actually stand up to scrutiny. For example, your idea that "kids don't see the limitations the market has placed upon us" only makes sense if you believe:
a) that young founders don't understand existing markets; and
b) that old founders can't imagine a world other than the existing world; and
c) a failure to understand existing markets creates an advantage; and
d) a failure to understand existing markets does not create an offsetting disadvantage; and
e) an understanding of existing markets does not create an advantage; and
f) an understanding of existing markets only creates disadvantages.
Do you have proof of any or all of these?
Your arbitrarily chosen metric for success was a huge ($10b+) exit. If we do that, only ONE of the ten largest IPOs was a young kid (Zuck at FB), and even there, he wasn't reimagining a market per your thesis, he was doing something entirely new.
I really, really wish HN had a way to flag 'eloquently stated bullshit', because it's dangerous when people like you open their mouths. You confidently and eloquently say shit that's just totally fucking wrong, and you make everyone dumber. It feeds your ego and it kills the world. Fucking shut your dumb mouth.