This has all sorts of implications. For example, it means that success as an employee of a large organization is no predictor (in fact is probably a negative predictor) of success as a founder.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Intriguingly, it also imposes a limit on the degree to which the economy can be consolidated. Some people don't want to work for someone else. (This was temporarily suppressed by oligopoly in the mid 20th Century: http://paulgraham.com/re.html .)
Show this thread -
The independent-mindedness of startup founders even puts them at odds with their own employees, many of whom don't mind being told what to do (and thus also don't mind the government telling everyone what to do).
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The difference between insanity and genius is sometimes luck.
-
Luck is when opportunity meets preparation.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Do you have some sort of covert test for that quality in potential investees?
-
It's always been a quality I look for in founders, but the way I look for it is no more covert than the way I look for any other quality.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Mmm, yes, there's an exception for that.
- Show replies
-
-
-
do you have any data for this? employees may also do what they’re told because they must. don’t have the capital or credit to start their own company, but they have to eat. don’t have the parents to buy them food while they build their dreams.
-
“the implications of my personal experience is that most people are simple automatons with no generative creativity, and the rebellious ubermensch rise above to take the surplus value (aka profit) exploited from the rest. this obviously makes me look great.” lol
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.