[david927]

We're at the end of a cycle, so there's a real sense of pop investing and other characteristics that come with it, such as what happened in 1999. That annoys some people, maybe for the reason you mention, or maybe because they like technology and are ashamed that it makes us look like fools.

We both know that in a year from now (but no more than three) there will be 10% of the current number of startups, and investing will be much more grounded. It happens every 7-10 years. No need to take shots.

[dang]

I don't know that, nor do I know about cycles.

My statement was too glib (I edit most of those out, but you got me this time). I do think that one can't understand discussions like this without understanding implicit resentment. Underneath "others are stupid" lies "my intelligence goes unrecognized"; underneath "others are undeservedly rich" lies "I deserve better"; and so on. The drivers, at bottom, are personal, which explains why the discussions aren't intellectually interesting—they're driven by a different kind of interest. It also explains why people are quick to anger and/or show up with guns blazing: these feelings are already in cache. It also, sadly, explains why such posts invariably get many upvotes.

Actually, the discussion might become interesting again if people would speak openly and personally about such feelings. It's the posture of pseudo-critique that's the problem: the format of substantive discussion without the content. The real content there is the emotional charge in the language.

My point here doesn't have to do with VCs or startups or UBeam but with the quality of discussion we want on HN.

[danieltillett]

Dang I agree with you. I actually think at this point the most important thing that YC has invested in is HN. There is no other forum that has a higher signal to noise.

YC has no interest to me as an incubator, but HN has changed the way I look at the world and is directly responsible for my newest venture. I am sure there are many others out there like me.

[dang]

> HN has changed the way I look at the world and is directly responsible for my newest venture. I am sure there are many others out there like me.

That's good to hear! One of my dreams for HN is for it to stimulate or at least facilitate more new projects. It feels like so much more is possible.

[david927]

Thanks for writing that, Dan. It's important to clarify what we're arguing about.

Underneath "others are stupid" lies "my intelligence goes unrecognized"

Oh, but that's why it's good to check where this is coming from: It is precisely because I know what brilliant minds we have in this industry that I am disappointed. I am blown away by how much smarter others in this industry are than I am -- and that is one of the reasons it stings. Imagine you have a nephew who you know to be a prodigy and, sure enough, he ends up getting his PhD at MIT, and you're so proud of him. Then he tells you his dissertation is called 'Yo' and is 200 pages about sending 'Yo' to your friends, and how he expects will make him rich, rich, rich!

The disappointment stems from the expectation that he can do better.

underneath "others are undeservedly rich" lies "I deserve better"; and so on.

That's a very strange motivation to project on this situation that we're funding foolish endeavours and not funding truly interesting research. [By the way, projecting jealousy is one of the last tools of defence in the box and one of the lowest. It's easy to use, hard to refute and is rarely germane. Please be careful.]

My comments were made because our industry is a ship driven by greed to foolish ends. We are abundant in potential but are squandering it like spoiled grandchildren. Joe Armstrong opened last year's StrangeLoop with "We can do better." I'm sure you've heard Alan Kay's talks since, what, 1997? He's... jealous? I don't think so. He, like many of us, would just like to see progress. But we've made little-to-no progress in the last 35 years.

So when we also see what projects are funded, it's not hard to frustrated. Can you imagine a time when chemistry is exploding and yet it's hard to get funding to do medical research but there is funding, plenty of it, if you want to create better fireworks? Go to a top conference on the most innovative projects and there's not an investor to be found, but stand near someone who just made Angry Birds and you might get a concussion from the stampede.

A much lighter way of hearing what I'm trying to say is this: try to find a TV show called "That Mitchell and Webb Look", Episode 4.1, wherein a chemist who thinks he finds a cure for a disease is told by the owner, M. Ganier, that this is his laboratoire and he demands new ways to make hair silky! I think you'll find it's hysterical and at the same time -- this is how many of us feel.

You're right that you hear emotion, but it's frustration, because it's not that we can't, it's that we don't.

[dang]

As your fellow Alan Kay fan I have a lot of sympathy with what you're saying here and I especially appreciate how heartfelt it is. I also partly agree with it—or maybe it would be better to say I fully agree with it, but think it's only a partial picture.

In any case, this is definitely not the ressentiment I was talking about; this is an opposite kind of discussion, one that is thoughtful, not cynically predictable, and opens the conversation further rather than closes it. All of which is just fine for HN.

It's also an example of what I meant by "if people would speak openly and personally about such feelings", and that takes some courage and I admire you for it.