[AnimalMuppet]

You asked what was great about it. I told you.

Yes, there's an element of "the right place at the right time". And there's working very hard to make the most of it.

Or look at it this way: That opportunity was there for multiple millions of people who could code at the time. It was Viaweb that took advantage of it, though.

[luffapi]

There were not millions of developers back then. According to Wikipedia there were 680k developers in the US in 2000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering_demograph...

Regardless, the point is that we should not be listening to a guy who got lucky with mediocre software sold to a mediocre (at best) company in the middle of a bubble about how to duplicate his success.

Remember this is where Yahoo! was at at the time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast.com

[eloff]

> Regardless, the point is that we should not be listening to a guy who got lucky with mediocre software sold to a mediocre (at best) company in the middle of a bubble about how to duplicate his success.

You're doing exactly what I was taking about. Downplaying his success. Spinning a narrative that makes it look like he just got lucky. Why?

What have you accomplished with your life? Are you bitter about something? Because if we're really honest here, your opinion of Paul Graham seems to have more to do with you than with him.

[luffapi]

My beef is that a lot of ignorant people are going to cargo cult this nonsense and create a toxic work environment for everyone. I also have an issue with hero worship, I didn’t become a technologist to prop up billionaires.

[eloff]

> My beef is that a lot of ignorant people are going to cargo cult this nonsense and create a toxic work environment for everyone.

Very little of Paul Graham's essays are written for people in the workplace. When he says work hard, he's not talking about work hard at a 9-5 job to make your employer rich. He's talking to people who found companies. Everyone else would do well to focus on work life balance. I take it you're not one of those people with ambitions to found a large successful company. Most people aren't. There nothing wrong with that, just that these essays are not really aimed at you. Paul Graham is one of those people. So am I, although I'm not successful (yet anyway.)

> I also have an issue with hero worship, I didn’t become a technologist to prop up billionaires.

Because jealously? Why does his wealth enter into this equation at all? Why is it relevant to you? It's fine to be inspired by people who achieve things. It can be taken too far, but you can say that about anything.

[luffapi]

You shouldn’t make assumptions. I’ve been a senior leader at multiple very high profile and successful startups. I’ve also founded several VC backed startups. The problem is founders absolutely read stuff like this then create toxic work environments. I say it’s nonsense because I’ve succeeded without working myself or others to the bone.

> Because jealously?

No. Because I think celebrity culture is toxic. It induces the cargo culting effect I’m talking about. I also don’t think wealth inequality is a good thing for society. I would include myself as someone who should not be worshipped. I accurately attribute a lot of my success to luck (including being born at the right time with the right skills). I think you’d find my attitude more prevalent in the early tech industry. I didn’t invent the term “kill your idols” but it’s a good one. If you succeed enough you cross the line from disruptor to disruptee.

[eloff]

> . I’ve been a senior leader at multiple very high profile and successful startups. I’ve also founded several VC backed startups.

What startups? I can't square your attitude towards PG with a history like that. Something is off.

[kapp_in_life]

Software engineer is a much more common job title now than back then. Back then IT people or developers did a good amount of building & coding, and many would be called software engineers nowadays.

[luffapi]

This number counts developers. I was around back then, the number is accurate.

There was not millions of people writing code in 1996.