Hacker News Reader

Comment by motorest | Hacker News Reader

> On the one hand, sure. On the other hand this relentless focus on "hyper-scale" or bust is what has pushed the US startup scene to where it is and probably why it is so far ahead of the rest of the world.

I don't agree. I think this is specious reasoning fueled by a mix of cargo cult mentality and survivorship bias. Just because a hand full of startups made it all the way through to a unicorn status, and some where bought out for undisclosed reasons,that means nothing on whether an idea is or can be hiper-scalable. To make matters worse, this reeks of short-term mentality that serves no purpose whatsoever other than find yet another angle to put together a kind of pump and dump scam.

View on HN

I don't think any of this is the case, and you haven't really said why. Focusing on winning big is absolutely not survivorship bias. Everyone in the 100m is aiming to be the fastest human on earth, but only one will win. That's not survivorship bias. Throwing fallacy names as insults is still just insults.

The 100m is not a sustainable model for a nation or world's economy. Everyone needs to eat, not just the single individual who runs fastest.

That doesn't seem in any way relevant to the point about survivorship bias. Nor to the US, whose system has if anything produced far too much food for its citizens.

> That doesn't seem in any way relevant to the point about survivorship bias.

To me, it seems exactly like the point of view that someone who wins the 100m would have.

> Nor to the US, whose system has if anything produced far too much food for its citizens.

Where people still starve, where people are still homeless, where people still live in poverty. What's your point here?

> To me, it seems exactly like the point of view that someone who wins the 100m would have.

That's just your own assumption. Who cares what any of us imagines anyone else thinks? It's not really relevant.

> Who cares what any of us imagines anyone else thinks?

Since you're responding and we're having a conversation about each other's opinions, I'd say it actually is relevant.

I'm not imagining what you think; I'm just responding to what you write.

Value creation isn't a zero sum game. Increased productivity benefits everyone. Whether it hyperscales or not, genuinely profitable businesses add value to the economy. This in turn creates more opportunities for everyone willing to participate.

"Value creation" is not the same as the monopolistic paradigm of a winner-take-all 100m race. Hyperscaling is a system where potentially profitable businesses are destroyed because they weren't profitable ENOUGH for some singular VC investor class.

I agree with you that profitable businesses add value to everyone's lives, but there's a maximalist limit to the relationship where they start extracting value and opportunity overall.

Similarly, almost all of the track and field athletes always cross the finish line, regardless of placement. If your business is genuinely profitable, you should do the same. You don't have to be gold medalist if it means compromising your vision or values. If you object to the whims of investors, it may be better to focus on things you can build without their assistance. It isn't as glamorous and it may not make you a billionaire, but it does hone your ability.

Frankly, not all of the VC sphere is focused on value creation. Much of it seems focused on buzzwords and vaporware. Success in the VC world might mean keeping the hype and promises of hyperscale performance rolling long enough to successfully dump on retail. Sure, VCs and founders profit, but is it genuine value creation?

It is a symptom of an overly financialized economy. We should distinguish these cynical scenarios from genuinely profitable value creation.

> It is a symptom of an overly financialized economy. We should distinguish these cynical scenarios from genuinely profitable value creation.

1000% agree, thanks for the thoughtful reply

> Value creation isn't a zero sum game. Increased productivity benefits everyone. Whether it hyperscales or not, genuinely profitable businesses add value to the economy. This in turn creates more opportunities for everyone willing to participate.

Your comment contradicts the "hyperscale or bust" mentality. Hyperscale is not a necessary condition to be competitive. You can put out a better product/service even before economies of scale are reachable. In the meantime, this hyperscale nonsense is nothing more than cargo cult mentality where the need for a sustainable business model is replaced with hand-waving and mindlessly repeating "hyperscale" as a mantra, which has been the death of countless startups.

> Everyone in the 100m is aiming to be the fastest human on earth, but only one will win.

This is a mental model of how things actually work that is fundamentally wrong and out of touch with reality. In any free market economy you have multiple competing businesses operating in the same market. The world is not a 100m race. Second place can still turn an fantastic profit and make everyone rich.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com