←back to thread

Reflecting on My Failure to Build a Billion-Dollar Company

(medium.com)
2101 points jamesjyu | 1 comments | 07 Feb 19 15:28 UTC | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
sahillavingia ◴[07 Feb 19 16:33 UTC] No.19106256[source]▶
Hey, #1 on Hacker News! I don't think that's happened since...I launched Gumroad back in 2011:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2406614

Thanks HN for being a part of my journey!

replies(27): >>19106391 #>>19106416 #>>19106502 #>>19106546 #>>19106639 #>>19106641 #>>19106666 #>>19106684 #>>19106832 #>>19106859 #>>19106887 #>>19106893 #>>19106992 #>>19107285 #>>19107422 #>>19107686 #>>19107716 #>>19107865 #>>19107900 #>>19108045 #>>19108330 #>>19109377 #>>19111223 #>>19111367 #>>19111482 #>>19111763 #>>19134628 #
ChuckMcM ◴[07 Feb 19 17:26 UTC] No.19106684[source]▶
I love your story Sahil, it is so true that people equate 'wealth' with 'success' but that is short sighted. If you step back and look at the big picture, you're on this planet for anywhere from 70 to 100 years, and at the end of that time there are two metrics, the number of people you helped and the amount of wealth you amassed and held on to, which number is a better representative of 'success'?

Working on things you enjoy, making a positive impact on people's lives, and raising a new generation to carry on where you left off, that is success.

Stay focused there and you might accidentally accumulate so much wealth you have to work at putting it to use helping people like Bill does!

replies(4): >>19106734 #>>19106821 #>>19106878 #>>19107809 #
kbenson ◴[07 Feb 19 17:33 UTC] No.19106734[source]▶
> at the end of that time there are two metrics, the number of people you helped and the amount of wealth you amassed and held on to, which number is a better representative of 'success'?

Let's not forget personal satisfaction. I'm a little leery of putting the entire assessment of my life onto other people (even though if I was going to, I could do a lot worse than number of people helped).

Hopefully helping other people leads to some amount of personal satisfaction for most people, and they'll have a fairly good life and good impact on others by the end. :)

replies(2): >>19108180 #>>19108909 #
Retra ◴[07 Feb 19 20:19 UTC] No.19108180[source]▶
Personal satisfaction doesn't matter once you're dead. Those other things do. And your entire assessment of your life at that point will be put onto other people.

With that said, optimizing for after you're dead might be selfish and reasonably desirable, but there's a lot to be said for optimizing for tomorrow instead. Life would be pretty pointless if none of us were supposed to optimize for some enjoyment while we're here.

replies(3): >>19108275 #>>19108584 #>>19117781 #
FiberBundle ◴[07 Feb 19 20:29 UTC] No.19108275[source]▶
Intentionally being provocative here, but by that logic, why does your effect on other people matter? You are unlikely to leave a lasting legacy, and the generation you do affect, will die as well.
replies(2): >>19108343 #>>19108464 #
dwaltrip ◴[07 Feb 19 20:50 UTC] No.19108464[source]▶
> You are unlikely to leave a lasting legacy, and the generation you do affect, will die as well.

By this logic, culture and society would die every generation, and have to be rebuilt from scratch each time.

We all leave behind a "small" but far-reaching legacy that ripples out from our short lifetime. Each of the thousands of interactions we have with with other people and our general environment have a tiny but real impact that doesn't necessarily diminish to zero after we die. The change that occurs then has a small domino effect on any other person or system that it touches. And so on and so forth :)

My life today is deeply affected by the concerted actions of billions of unknown individuals from centuries and millennia past in ways that I can't even begin to fathom. I'm grateful for some of those impacts. For other impacts less so, but I hope to contribute small changes for the benefit those who live in the untold distant future.

replies(2): >>19109282 #>>19112249 #
FiberBundle ◴[07 Feb 19 22:31 UTC] No.19109282[source]▶
I completely agree that wanting to make a positive impact on the world is important, although, and I don't want to sound too nihilistic here, the actual magnitude of that will probably be small for most people, therefore I think that personal satisfaction in life should be important and isn't meaningless, which was what OP claimed and the reason why I asked that question.
replies(1): >>19111096 #
robryan ◴[08 Feb 19 02:52 UTC] No.19111096[source]▶
Yeah small and quickly diminishing over time, outside of very close friends and direct descendants. For example how many fought in WW2? How many were in high level roles and instrumental to the conflict? How many would be thinking they were making a lasting impact on the world? And of those what small portion have pretty much a permanent place in the history books?

Even to pick a small part of it, 130,000 people worked on the Manhattan Project but a history of it that the average person would consume might name 10 key figures.

replies(1): >>19111841 #
1. dwaltrip ◴[08 Feb 19 05:41 UTC] No.19111841[source]▶
The long-term impact of any human activity is so much more than what is written in a history book somewhere. A history book is an enormously compressed, somewhat distorted depiction of human experience. Only a very small sliver of the actual fiber of human culture, achievement, and experience across time is recorded in this way. Yet all of these things are still happening, and they form the substrate upon which the events that are actually written down can take place.

To use your example of the Manhattan project: only 10 people may be remembered in books, but they certainly would have never completed the project by themselves. The contributions of those other thousands of individuals was vital to the project's success. If they didn't exist, it's not a guarantee that you could have replaced all of them -- the project may have simply failed.