Certainly an echo chamber. It is still technically better. I can handle downvotes all day but I will not accept mindless toxicity, personal attacks, and disrespect. That’s Reddit behavior; I think there’s a lot less of that on here.
That comes out, the conversation ends, I block their ass. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I was hating Bill Gates long before the conspiracy people decided Bill Gates was putting 5G nanobots in vaccines.
Now I have to defend the guy against accusations of making people magnetic or WTF ever while hating on him for ruining software and opposing social wellfare programs.
Yep, if I was rich I’d already be a professional game dev. Since I’m not I work IT and dev at night. Its obvious, rich people can take risks cause they’re rich. Which means they end up deciding what gets made for the most part.
And they can just focus on the things that are important. For a lot of people, a job is just a means to an end, to finance hobbies or side projects. But at the end of the day I’m already exhausted to do any of the fun stuff.
Yea indeed. This is very important to remember. Without financial backing and connections, most businesses don’t go very far.
I think we should shatter these “started in the garage” myths as they do in this article. The average family doesn’t earn enough to give their kids a good enough education or finance their dreams.
Hence most people end up doing some or other job they loath, for the rest of their lives.
These days especially, aint nobody inventing a new kind of personal computer in their garage. I liken it to the days of when bands would mail out demo tapes to anyone they could find a mailing address for. These days, that’s one of the quickest ways to have your shit tossed in the trash.
Having worked in business incubation at a research university, helping researchers find angel investors, I’d like to throw in my two cents:
First of all, the article runs headlong into survivorship bias. For each Bezos or Gates, there are thousands of entrepreneurs with financial backing that went bust. And the vast majority of those who didn’t were acquired by larger, established companies before they could even hit the news (in my area, the ideal exit strategy was said to be acquired by Cisco, rather than an IPO). Many of these startups had even more initial backing by the three f’s (family, friends and fools).
Now, let’s look at those who didn’t have financial backing. For such people, there are angel investors. As others in this thread pointed out, one needs to have good connections to find such investors. Good connections are available in most, if not all, research universities, via their business incubators. Universities, however, will retain part ownership of the company (licensing any research or technology back to the entrepreneur), and they are still thinking in the medium term. They are not looking for unicorns, but a steady stream of revenue, so their preferred exit strategy is indeed the acquisition. I’m certain that the very few poorer entrepreneurs who’d strike it rich in IPO were pressured into selling their company. That’s why you don’t see any examples of a company truly being pulled out of nothing. And don’t get me even started at the wasted opportunities where the professor didn’t sign the research licensing papers because he’d make a comfortable living keeping the research at the university…
Point of this is that it will be statistically likely that we’ll get a few super-rich entrepreneurs, and they’ll come mainly from backgrounds where they could secure seed financing. That does not mean they didn’t work very hard with the money they were given.
That was pretty normal. But the angel and venture investors walked away with money. And if the founders were smart or assertive enough, they also made enough money to start a new venture, possibly with less external seed funding.
That does not mean they didn’t work very hard with the money they were given.
The point isn’t that you don’t need to work hard to become successful. It’s that success tends to favor those who come from privileged backgrounds, especially when that privilege is already being wealthy.
You seem to have read the article as “Being wealthy ensures success” when instead the point is “Becoming ultra-wealthy and/or successful starts with being wealthy and successful.”
Wealthy parents will significantly help but there are exceptions to the rule that all billionaires came from wealthy parents. What helps is knowing that if you fail, your family can support you regardless.
A bigger thing at play is just survivorship bias. Most entrepreneurs fail.
It isn’t 100% clear, but all evidence suggests Elon Musk did not have millions inherited and was largely done through his own work. His parents had little to do with his success in America.
This is heavily disputed - but is described by several neutral sources as well as by Isaac Walterson in the biography of Elon Musk, and I do trust him as a good biographer.
Not to say he didn’t grow up privileged which does make an impact, but not a case of just receiving millions for free.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
They forgot Elon. His daddy owned an emerald mine in apartheid South Africa.
Technically Bezos had a step-dad with money
Well that’s just not factually correct
Wow, -34 for that comment?! This sub is more echo than the_donald! I thought Lemmy would be a better place than Reddit…
Certainly an echo chamber. It is still technically better. I can handle downvotes all day but I will not accept mindless toxicity, personal attacks, and disrespect. That’s Reddit behavior; I think there’s a lot less of that on here.
That comes out, the conversation ends, I block their ass. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah this place is nuts on some topics.
Right wingers suck, you know?
I was hating Bill Gates long before the conspiracy people decided Bill Gates was putting 5G nanobots in vaccines.
Now I have to defend the guy against accusations of making people magnetic or WTF ever while hating on him for ruining software and opposing social wellfare programs.
Yep, if I was rich I’d already be a professional game dev. Since I’m not I work IT and dev at night. Its obvious, rich people can take risks cause they’re rich. Which means they end up deciding what gets made for the most part.
And they can just focus on the things that are important. For a lot of people, a job is just a means to an end, to finance hobbies or side projects. But at the end of the day I’m already exhausted to do any of the fun stuff.
Don’t forget the ones that are bad at it, like Musk and Trump.
Yea indeed. This is very important to remember. Without financial backing and connections, most businesses don’t go very far.
I think we should shatter these “started in the garage” myths as they do in this article. The average family doesn’t earn enough to give their kids a good enough education or finance their dreams.
Hence most people end up doing some or other job they loath, for the rest of their lives.
These days especially, aint nobody inventing a new kind of personal computer in their garage. I liken it to the days of when bands would mail out demo tapes to anyone they could find a mailing address for. These days, that’s one of the quickest ways to have your shit tossed in the trash.
There are more Fathers with Money than Billionaires
I think the sad truth is that you need brains, hard work, AND a father with money.
Rich daddy = bootstraps.
Having worked in business incubation at a research university, helping researchers find angel investors, I’d like to throw in my two cents:
First of all, the article runs headlong into survivorship bias. For each Bezos or Gates, there are thousands of entrepreneurs with financial backing that went bust. And the vast majority of those who didn’t were acquired by larger, established companies before they could even hit the news (in my area, the ideal exit strategy was said to be acquired by Cisco, rather than an IPO). Many of these startups had even more initial backing by the three f’s (family, friends and fools).
Now, let’s look at those who didn’t have financial backing. For such people, there are angel investors. As others in this thread pointed out, one needs to have good connections to find such investors. Good connections are available in most, if not all, research universities, via their business incubators. Universities, however, will retain part ownership of the company (licensing any research or technology back to the entrepreneur), and they are still thinking in the medium term. They are not looking for unicorns, but a steady stream of revenue, so their preferred exit strategy is indeed the acquisition. I’m certain that the very few poorer entrepreneurs who’d strike it rich in IPO were pressured into selling their company. That’s why you don’t see any examples of a company truly being pulled out of nothing. And don’t get me even started at the wasted opportunities where the professor didn’t sign the research licensing papers because he’d make a comfortable living keeping the research at the university…
Point of this is that it will be statistically likely that we’ll get a few super-rich entrepreneurs, and they’ll come mainly from backgrounds where they could secure seed financing. That does not mean they didn’t work very hard with the money they were given.
My company was acquired by Cisco … and within six months everyone from the original company had been laid off.
That was pretty normal. But the angel and venture investors walked away with money. And if the founders were smart or assertive enough, they also made enough money to start a new venture, possibly with less external seed funding.
The point isn’t that you don’t need to work hard to become successful. It’s that success tends to favor those who come from privileged backgrounds, especially when that privilege is already being wealthy.
You seem to have read the article as “Being wealthy ensures success” when instead the point is “Becoming ultra-wealthy and/or successful starts with being wealthy and successful.”
Explain what you and billionaires consider hard work.
If you buy into the myth of the “self-made” billionaire you might just as well buy into the idea of magic glass slippers granting you royalty.
“Billionaire,” please…millionaires are a dime a dozen these days, many of them truly “self-made” and from poor backgrounds.
Name them.
deleted by creator
Wealthy parents will significantly help but there are exceptions to the rule that all billionaires came from wealthy parents. What helps is knowing that if you fail, your family can support you regardless.
A bigger thing at play is just survivorship bias. Most entrepreneurs fail.
Name some exceptions for the class.
It isn’t 100% clear, but all evidence suggests Elon Musk did not have millions inherited and was largely done through his own work. His parents had little to do with his success in America.
This is heavily disputed - but is described by several neutral sources as well as by Isaac Walterson in the biography of Elon Musk, and I do trust him as a good biographer.
Not to say he didn’t grow up privileged which does make an impact, but not a case of just receiving millions for free.
Paul McCartney is a billionaire who came from modest means. I can’t think of any other TBH.
this thread makes me realize even lemmy users are far up billionaires assholes