[adamzerner]

[Probability is in the mind](http://lesswrong.com/lw/oj/probability_is_in_the_mind/). It's a reflection of our limited information, not reality. There really isn't anything inherently probabilistic about startups. If we had the right information and enough reasoning ability, we would be able to turn the dials just right. That's in theory.

In practice, it's hard to acquire enough information. This is where luck comes into play. You need luck when your information is limited.

But in practice, I don't think we should be overly humble worshipers of this "luck". Yes, it's pretty important, but I think you could reach a point of having enough information and reasoning ability where luck is a notably smaller component of success than skill. I think that we have a ways to go in terms of improving our information and reasoning ability.

* For example, startup ideas are rarely strategically chosen amongst carefully thought out alternatives. They usually just emerge from a side-project.

* And founders really struggle to [isolate](http://lesswrong.com/lw/bc3/sotw_be_specific/) what it really is that gives them a competitive advantage over their competitors.

I think that in 50 years, people will have gotten "good enough" at startups such that luck is a smaller determinant of success than skill.

[wpietri]

> If we had the right information and enough reasoning ability, we would be able to turn the dials just right. That's in theory.

Alas, not even in theory, because other actors are generating new information. Some of that new information will specifically be in response to your actions.

Even if over time skill and knowledge increase, that will be true for everybody. So luck will continue to be as important. Possibly more so; it seems to me that increasing knowledge reduces the opportunity for individual skill to make a difference.

[tedks]

It's hilarious to me that someone linking to less wrong isn't rational enough to know that reddit markup doesn't work on hacker news. Somehow, the rationality never much further than discussing fictional AI scenarios.

[mhartl]

The link is formatted as Markdown, which is designed to be human-readable as well as easily convertible to HTML [1]:

The idea is that a Markdown-formatted document should be publishable as-is, as plain text, without looking like it’s been marked up with tags or formatting instructions.

Thus, the use of a Markdown-style link in the present context is not a mistake. Moreover, even if it were, it wouldn't justify your smug and snarky tone, which you would do well to avoid in the future.

[1]: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/

[jsprogrammer]

Reddit markup?

What specifically in the post is 'Reddit markup'? Looks like plain old Markdown and/or CommonMark to me.

[jamesaguilar]

Rationality and knowledge are related, but not equivalent, as you seem to believe.

[tedks]

Quite not, but as it's written on less wrong, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and I don't think the comment parent has ever seen a hyperlinked phrase on HN.