(paulgraham.com)

274 points npalli | 1 comments | 29 Mar 25 12:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.202s | source

Show context

sitkack ◴[29 Mar 25 13:42 UTC] No.43515466[source]▶

Is Paul giving himself a pass for the companies he funds?

booleandilemma ◴[29 Mar 25 13:48 UTC] No.43515520[source]▶

I read it more like he's considering what to throw his money at, and it sounds like he wants to throw his money at companies that make good new things.

replies(3): >>43515631 #>>43526001 #>>43526080 #

sitkack ◴[29 Mar 25 14:03 UTC] No.43515631[source]▶

>>43515520 #

But then he doesn't really define good, makes an odd comparison to a now acclaimed pulp fiction author and then says we can only really know what is good after the fact.

Leaning on "new" so hard as part of the "good" just reduces to, "Make new-new things that aren't by every objective measure bad and see if it works out in hindsight".

It would be helpful if we understood what good and bad mean to him.

replies(2): >>43526400 #>>43526805 #

1. mbesto ◴[30 Mar 25 18:35 UTC] No.43526400[source]▶

>>43515631 #

His essay from 2008[0] is just as nebulous. When you have such a hand-wavy definition of such an important term, it ultimately means you can wield your narrative to fit any conclusion you want.

[0] - https://www.paulgraham.com/good.html

↑

What to Do