[weego]

I think the more brutal reality is that just because you had been there then instead of someone else doesn't mean Instagram would have done what it did. Maybe as a first hire you'd have jerked around more than the actual person, or missed deadlines or just made bad choices which lead to zero traction.

It's egotistical to assume that it being you instead leads to the same result

[confiscate]

Ya I agree, but on the other hand, it's possible that if you had been there instead of someone else, you would have made better choices leading to 10x traction and made Instagram 10x what it is today

I mean, what signals lead you to believe one scenario is more likely than the other?

It didn't sound like he was a weak employee in any way--if anything, he sounded like a strong employee because the founder of Instagram wanted to create a full-time role just to keep him, despite not having much money for the startup back then. I would assume the founder of Instagram is a better judge than I am, of who is good to hire.

It's possible that Instagram would have been more successful if he was there to support it back then.

[newman8r]

I could boil it down to a thought experiment: If you could trade being alive and healthy today, for hitting it rich 10 years ago but you have no idea if you'd still be alive/healthy/happy today - would you do it?

[Apocryphon]

Actually I think the point is that the universe is vastly complex and due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect all sorts of alternate outcomes may have resulted

[confiscate]

Yes I agree. That's my point as well.