I just love that random Twitter responses to content I post is still more relevant than much of the feedback I’ve gotten during the academic pier review process ✊✊✊
Hehe peer review process too
It’s like ... “hey, I just saw your note and I happened to have this similar situation in 2013. You’re mostly right, but actually this thing also happened that you should account for. DM me and let’s think it through”
Even many of the more polemic/argumentative types are generally coming from a place of reason.
I dunno maybe I’m just lucky to be connected with a great fucking group of folks ✊
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
0/ Here is a thread on the Cloud analysis piece @sarahdingwang and I posted recently. We love the level of response and discussion. But wanted to summarize and address some of the comments.
1/ If you haven't read the piece, it's here (hint: neither Dropbox nor repatriation are core to the analysis. Nor have much to do with the results or conclusion)
"We only hire from top schools" is lazy practice that results in less-than-top teams. This thread is a rough attempt to explain why 🧵👇
Quickly about me: for undergrad I went to NAU, the smallest of three state universities in Az. I did my Masters and PhD at Stanford.
At Stanford I TA'd, I co-taught courses, I sat on the masters admission committee in CS as a consulting faculty, and I've been involved in hiring hundreds of folks as a founder, tech exec, and board member.
0/ VCs benefiting from offering bad advice to founders is such a tired canard. But it’s repeated enough that it’s worth addressing in some detail (a thread)
1/ VCs avoid investing in companies that don’t have potential for venture economics. We vet heavily for this. Founders' intentions is a huge part of the calculus. If there is early misalignment in vision and expectation, something went very wrong during the investment process.
2/ Different investors have vastly different risk tolerances and return expectations. There are many funds that invest in smaller TAMs or focus on efficiency over growth. It is incumbent on both sides prior to investment to ensure alignment.
1/ Advice on finding “the right idea” is often a variant of the tired painkillers vs. vitamins cliche -- focus on a problem you’ve experienced or others are experiencing yada yada
Yet, many impactful ideas were more akin to aesthetics, how founders felt the world should be.
2/ Take compute virtualization. For decades, VMs were an elegant oddity. The VMware team viewed them as the right way to abstract compute but weren't quite sure the killer use case(s). And yet that led to multiple deca-billion dollar markets.
3/ Many platforms and OSes have followed similar paths. They didn’t address a particular burning need now, but if adopted they would change how we did work and thought about work.
I’ll have a go - raw numbers are correlated with turnout, not relative popularity - 94% of democrats voted for Biden and there are 5% more democrats than republicans nationally - the only demographic that voted majority trump is white males (and they only make up 30% of the pop)
- exit polls contradict a number of these claims including LatinX voters outside of Florida and oil-dependent Tx (both that went Trump) - absolute gains for blacks are correlated with record turn out, exits polls show overwhelming backing of Biden
- much of the anomalistic skewing happened during mail ins in an election where the incumbent told his constituency not to trust ballots over mail