[adventured]

> but 90% of it is garbage.

That's inherent to the process of all creation and business starting. 90% of everything is garbage. That's a case where there's nothing unique about Silicon Valley. I'm sure you're at least vaguely aware of the very high failure rate of all new businesses within just a five year span.

Or see: last 200 years of industrial history. There were hundreds of automakers just in Detroit in the US, experimenting with just about everything they could. Most of it was garbage. It's a required part of the process of experimentation. If someone stands up and proclaims that aspect is stupid and a waste and they know better (they'd never make such mistakes, they'd never need to perform such wasteful experimentation), well, at least then you know who you're dealing with.

[aaron-lebo]

It was an observation, not a normative statement. The only part anyone really cares about is the 10%, so if your goal isn't to have an ecosystem that is always churning through stuff, that aspect isn't a huge advantage.

[adventured]

There's no such thing as an ecosystem that isn't always churning through stuff (other than a dead one). The premise you're floating doesn't exist.

Silicon Valley's 10% is better than the 10% anyone else produces. It also does it at a higher volume simultaneously. That's why it's Silicon Valley and nobody has managed to match it in the last 50 years.

[aaron-lebo]

But some of that ecosystem is just dead slack. It exists because it exists, because part of how SV works is VCs have to find new winners and people want to change jobs and have more options. If that is not your main goal, you don't need the ecosystem.

SV is good at what it does, it's the best at what it does, but that's orthogonal to building a great company. We believe it's necessary because that's how it has been done.