[ignoramous]

Even folks working on the problem sometimes think it is non-viable. I question the thing I'm working on, every single day. That's just how it is, even after you commit.

If one can deliver real value to end-users, and the growth takes a phenomenal turn, then different kind of non-viable thoughts would emerge, I'm sure.

[m0zg]

But the thing is, I'm actually pretty certain there's close to zero value in the solid 3/4 of these ideas. I concede that maybe I just don't see it, but statistically my odds of being right are much better than theirs.

[coffeemug]

You have much better odds of being right but they have much better odds of being successful.

[kidintech]

That is a pretty unwarranted passive-aggressive remark, especially considering you know nothing about the person you'r e replying to and all he said were objective truths.

[ericd]

I'm pretty sure he means that by being a critic on the sideline, you have a better chance of being right, but you have much worse odds of doing something great. Or said differently, if you never try, you never fail, but you also never succeed. I don't think that's an inappropriate response to someone who's saying "3/4 of these ideas suck".

And no, what the person he's responding to is saying aren't objective truths.

[jerrre]

Isn't that the whole VC model? 1 big success pays for 99 failures? I think it's more about what could happen if one blows up, than about how big the chance is that it will.

[pontifier]

In my mind, I like the idea of funding the companies that are building the type of future I want to live in. That way the future I like has a better chance of happening.

Alternatively, a strategy could fund the ones that are building a terrible, but profitable future, and using the money you make to live somewhere else.

It almost seems like a prisoner's dilemma sort of situation. If you don't fund the baddies, and someone else does, then you'll be poor in a terrible future.