Hacker News Reader

Comment by wbhart | Hacker News Reader

I like the model Fabrice uses. He picks really meaty, technical projects which most individuals would not attempt alone, if they even think the project is possible. And he comes up with the goods. It would be interesting to know if this model works... umm financially. Very tempting to give it a try if it does.

View on HN

The reason the average HN-goer never does anything of note is precisely because of being driven by this "how can I monetize this" mentality alone.

Getting paid is a proxy for doing something society actually wants (rather than paying lip service to) and brings the resources to make it self-sustaining. I'm torn because I find society's wants (at least around my calling) to be largely fickle and shallow, but if I disregard them it's mere self-gratification.

I'm pretty sure that the market would support televised gladiatorial combat, but then you remember ethics. And if you'll allow ethics, why not also allow other considerations than purely what will make you money? Rachmaninov could have just written vaudeville tunes and radio advert jingles for lots more money, but we'd have not have heard of him today if he had. Was he merely self-gratifying, or are there more dimensions, other than what will make you richest precisely right now, in this 'worthiness' space within which you're maxima-finding?

Unfortunately, one has to eat. And there are social responsibilities, e.g. to family and the needy and so on. It's tempting to work on projects that are really meaningful, but if one receives nothing at all for it, the result may be starvation or a life of crime, unfortunately.

What about all the stuff you have to work through that society doesn't want to pay you for* before you can create something that they do? Life isn't a binary "Will I get paid or will I indulge myself with this project?".

*I am extremely loathe to use no payment as a direct indicator of want or value.

It's sort of a proxy for what society wants, but a rather noisy and inaccurate proxy. For one, it's only a proxy for the proportion of value you can personally capture: value you produce for society but cannot capture a good percentage of is still providing things that society wants, but not increasing your bank account. And for two, it's only really a useful proxy of short-term value: if you're doing work that society is going to love in 20 years, that doesn't help you eat today (which is why basic research rarely pays as a commercial business model, because the value it creates isn't near-term enough).

It's all to easy to convince oneself into creating things society should or may eventually value. In my case it took a long time for reality and the absence of evidence to sink in.

I think it's also far too easy to convince oneself into believing that a profitable business is actually creating value, rather than merely moving it around. So there are many pitfalls.

How about (perceived) barrier to entry and risk of failure to execute instead?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com