It’s amazing that Microsoft - given their focus on AI and decades of experience in spreadsheets - doesn’t offer this type of functionality. Corporate bureaucracy vs startup agility!
At risk of poking the bear, they should have done this decades ago. Except for LLMs they have had everything they needed to bundle this stack into a single product solution; this would be much better for users.
And yes! We're definitely of the opinion that as a startup we can outcompete the two trillion-dollar death stars when it comes to product experience. AI is a platform shift!
When I was in there in Microsoft Research, our team was working on related efforts. But, yes, while pieces have shipped into products, MS never released a complete solution at the time.
I dont know if the Python in Excel architecture as changed but last time i saw it, it was insane and unusable for me (data sent to MS servers where a linux container executes python: you need both a subscription and that the data in question not be regulated)
Platform wise, the equivalent would be if they combined Excel, PowerBI, Data Factory and Azure into a single tool.
Technically you can combine these, but it’s a cumbersome experience and difficult for most people. Vertically integrating their equivalents simplifies things a lot.
(Small note: we don’t currently offer Python to users but likely will at some point)
This might change as the thread matures, but the first 10 comments were all exclusively disagreeing with the premise of the post in ways that made it clear that 1) the commenters didn't read the post, and 2) their arguments were highly generic and didn't make any sense in the context of Sam Altman's life and path to success. So I would add one additional point to Sam's list: try to be a good listener.
Ok, reasonably well articulated argument, which I think says something along the line of "Sam Altman could have achieved his success more easily if he was born rich." I suppose that could be true, although you're certainly introducing new variables here that could also have unpredictable outcomes. For example, a unique Sam Altman quality is that during his time at YC, he used to send more messages per day than any other partner. He was doing that as a person who went from a middle class upbringing to being worth hundreds of millions. Is it safe to assume that the "other" Sam who was raised with a golden spoon would have been equally ambitious and productive? I honestly don't know and doubt that anyone can say with certainty.
The part that I am not following in your argument is why are we even introducing that variable in the first place. I mean, sure, money, beauty, health, IQ, EQ, and so many other factors are helpful and make everything easier. But why is money so intrinsically linked to Sam Altman's specific path to success? He comes from middle class, and all the money he made came after he was validated in his approach, not before. So why bring it up here? And if you're going to bring up money, why not bring up all the other factors I mentioned above?
The answer lies in the frequency of updates across the org. KRs in most orgs are reviewed on a quarterly basis, whereas marketing spend, conversions and similar need a weekly cadence. We are currently reporting on KRs on a weekly basis, but that requires a lot of indoctrination for new hires.
I think it’s best practice to monitor your top-level KRs in your weekly/bi-weekly leadership meeting. I have never heard anyone recommend to only use OKRs for retrospective evaluation of a quarter/half.
For example I’m sure Doerr recommends regular syncs on the status of your KRs.
They are intended to be both a way of reviewing the work in a planning period, and also determining what is red and needing attention within the planning period.
Tactical/team-facing KRs could be measured daily if you need to, though the CEO wouldn’t want that report.
Any startup that will hire someone focused on resting and vesting hasn't figured out their hiring, which is a 100% indication that the vesting is not going to be valuable.
Any startup that has a business model which cannot accommodate the incumbent work culture hasn't figured out their business model, which is 100% indication that the vesting is not going to be valuable.
I can't figure out if you're being sarcastic, because if so, you're nailing it. If not, literally every single argument you brought up is against the consensus in the YC community, which doesn't mean you're wrong, but it still stands out as a massively contrarian position on this site.
I get that people are concerned about their ideas being stolen, but honestly, you can probably come up with another idea. I think what most people who have their ideas stolen find is that it turned out to not be a good business, and someone else invested 2 years of their life on a painful slog to discover that. On to the next idea!
Your reasoning in this discussion is unbecoming of a board member. In your activity on that board you’re involved in a lot of open-ended conversations with a lot of ambiguity and high cost of failure. I hope you express yourself in that setting with a bit more humility and introspection.
I find your tone dismissive, condescending and snarky. I made a (hedged) statement that turned out to be incorrect, updated the blog post, and moved on. I didn't think it was a statement of great consequence, certainly nothing to fixate on.
Please review the HN Guidelines and ask yourself if posting your comment added to or detracted from the value of this discussion:
Do you share that link with everyone who disagrees with you? It comes across as an overreaction. Another way to deal with critical feedback would be to understand it at a deeper level instead of being reactive.
I’ll help you out. A bunch of us here deal with board members on a daily basis. Some board members are great, others not so much. To hear that there is a board out there that gave voting rights to an employee makes us experience two simultaneous sensations: 1. Hell yeah!, and 2. I wonder if they picked the right employee.
Oh shut up you sanctimonious prick. You're confirming all of the negative stereotypes about this website.
Do you think I, in 20 years of working in the industry, haven't dealt with bad board members? How about a little curiosity instead of whatever the hell you're dishing in this thread.
Let me help you out: you're a stupid little troll and your contributions to this discussion are like little turd droppings that just stink up the room. Please kindly contribute constructively or fuck the hell off.
There are other sources of this exact same info, and this source is far more on the lean side then anything I’ve ever seen. It’s not something I can share because the subscription is not mine, but I am sure others can back me up on this.
This is how fake news happens. I really wish we all took a bit more time to research things before we publish them, because I guarantee you there will be more people today running around and sharing this exact same fake news about founders living in apartments paid for by their startups.
W-2 “freelance” in addition to W-2 “non-freelance” at the same time? In other words, you violated your employment agreement and got fired. The sad part is you still don’t quite understand the basics of W-2 and why you got fired in the first place.
Apparently you don’t either. In the US at will employment doesn’t mean you can’t have another job. There may be a clause in an employment agreement that says you agree to not work for any other company, but I’ve only seen this clause once in 10 jobs. Do you know what this clause is commonly called?
In Clerky, you will find it under the section “Outside Activities.” Custom contracts may have a different name for that clause. 1 out of 10? Maybe if you’re in Hollywood or some other highly specialized vertical. In tech, it will be 99 out of 100.
> Will a CEO work less hard if he (and his peers) can only ever gain $100M in net worth before a wealth tax on assets kicks in?
I empathize with the quick back-of-the-napkin math ("if we could just take Bezos' money and give it to the poor..."). But I think there's an important nuance here.
You're making it sound like the only group of people that would be affected by this are the folks with $0 in net worth, so that the upside is $100m. In reality, anyone who's ever earned the first $100m (not inherited or won in a lottery), only ended up accelerating their ambition and likelihood of doing a lot more. Case in point - all of the Paypal mafia - they are all working their asses off every single day, and none of them would have had the upside that you're talking about.
In short, your proposal would basically mean that you're going to force into retirement anyone who demonstrates to be a 1000x doer. In the worst case scenario, the opportunities those people would have created would be lost for a long amount of time (eg: creating a domestic automaker that turns the ICE industry upside down). At best, you would be expecting from unproven people who have not yet validated their abilities to execute on those opportunities with the same level of success as the 1000x doers.
So it seems to me that the question is not so much "what could we do with Bezos' money," but more "how much of Bezos' money are we comfortable with not being generated at all to ensure that he never has more than $100m."
