This pic keeps me motivated.
It says Great work need time to build their Empire.
What you think??

You building an an empire?

@N00bPancakes Yeah but not a empire or it can be the next...

@Shivanshh Sorry, steve already used "next"

Gonna be perfectly honest here:

They had advantages you will never have.

Allowing the success of people born on third base to inspire you, and set your expectation will only lead to disappointment.

Your goals should be what inspires you.

@SortOfTested Believe yourself my point is only that.

@N00bPancakes If we see all possibilities of new ideas are ended then humans can't live on earth.
Just imagine ideas and believe yourself.

Where are the failed startups?

Survivors bias, 3 of them made it, 999997 didn't

@theabbie Failure is a option.
Elon musk is a great example of "Art of failing successfully".

@F1973 Yeah dude don't do anything.

@Shivanshh You have watched too much motivational videos, I like your attitude, but you should know the reality

@F1973
The full expression is, "born on third base, thinks he got a triple." It refers to people born into extreme wealth and influence, and assume their success in life is purely the result of their own hard work.

Background: In baseball there are four bases, 1-3 and home. A "triple" is when you get a hit and round 3 bases from that one hit*. The connotation is everyone else starts at home, has to hit the ball, and then round the first two bases without getting out, usually over the course of multiple successive hits. The euphemism refers to the fact that the odds are not in your favor.

*Not to be confused with a triple play, which is where you get three outs in a single hit

Impossible dream.

Just be <insert success story>

@N00bPancakes Good

@F1973 or just by being much more succesfull by default

Basically starting small and humble, and turning into assholes when money comes in

@alexbrooklyn Dude there are many

@Linux If your startup or idea is good you can get somewhat money help.
But if you not got help then think 100times is your ideas are good.

@Shivanshh

Eh, on the 'if idea good' thing.

You get money of someone else THINKS it is good. That's a long distance from the idea actually being good.

Theranos got a ton of investment money, they had NOTHING for a product. The product didn't exist.

There's no magical good idea evaluation system out there that is accurate, and good ideas fail all the time.

@Shivanshh
This is only true for men, statistically; assuming that capitalization is directly related to the strength of your idea is a logical fallacy. Female founders source 2.4% of the VC capital men get, many times for the same idea. The establishment is real. Personally, I had 3 failed rounds, before taking on a male "co-founder." Simply having him present in the pitch meeting, same deck, same spiel, saying nothing outside "hello, my name is so and so," netted us our first round

https://wappp.hks.harvard.edu/ventu...

That's how privilege works, btw. Assuming everyone starts at the same place, and all things are equal.

@Jilano I don't know about baseball.
Lucky I am.

@SortOfTested Sorry but I am very younger and You all are more experienced then me.
Sorry for post.

@Shivanshh
This is how you get educated. Someday you'll be delivering the same clinic my dude 😸

@SortOfTested cute kitty emoji

@SortOfTested No I will not do.
Everyone has its own perspective and ability and you can't jugde them or guide them.

@Shivanshh
Put that comment in an envelope, and open it in 20 years.

@F1973

So money turns companies into assholes?
Amazon paus 0 taxes in the US, crapple is fighting against the right to repair and Google is vacuuming up our lives

@Linux @F1973
It's less the money than the concept of "fiduciary duty," coupled with the outrageous theory that "corporations are people."

I think time and luck is crucial.
Time is even more important.
When you have time you can build anything you want.
You don’t have to work hard, just have luck to pick right things.
Based on history of those three companies they just had luck and time.
They got enough luck to not get acquired or sell themselves cause no one believed they bring value and have time ( often means money ) to keep the business running until they reach certain ROI
They also had rich parents / friends - you name it.
After passing 1 billion valuation you can just watch market and buy / sell / destroy competition and nobody have guts to stop you.
Cause at the end it’s not about money, functionalities or product.
It can all be crap and it often is - those companies deliver lots of crap under the hood.
At the end all that matters is product adoption.
When you have 1 billion people using your product they must resign from something during the day to do it.

Think about it.

@Shivanshh there are many who succeeded, but more that failed

Depends. The companies listed in the pictures have lost their ethics/morals mostly imo and those are extremely important to me so yeah...

@linuxxx They lost ethics after becoming huge, even with ethics they did pretty well, but yeah, those identical and favourable conditions will never exist again

So sad.
Everything, that made that companies likeable has gone away while they grew into godzillas.

@Oktokolo It’s not companies that grow but people who want to work in those companies grow company business.
Imagine tomorrow all technical staff leaves and no other people want to work there. Company literally dies and no one can stop it. Before that they will fill lawsuits to threaten employees. I saw that shit happening, it’s last breath.

But this won’t happen cause only pussies work in corporations.

Well times are changing maybe future generations will be different and those big corporations will die like fashion.

@SortOfTested Just for clarity's sake, in your article, the 2-3% number you gave is over the last thirty years of venture capital and it only applies to startups with an all-female founding team (which are a small percentage of all startups).

If you compare female teams to male teams (rather than % of total since less women found companies than men) and compare only in the previous year, the numbers are different.

In 2019, all-female founding teams averaged a $1.2 million seed round (those that did get a seed round at all). Mixed teams and all-male founded teams averaged a $1.35 million seed round. Over all rounds of funding, all-female teams raise 13% less than all-male teams and 10% less than mixed teams (when you compare evenly across rounds).

13% is less but it's not as if a man will earn a $1 million dollar seed round and a woman will get a $3000 dollar seed round (2-3%)

https://bizjournals.com/bizwomen/...

@justamuslimguy
That's not clarity, that's just increasing the signal to noise ratio and allowing you to curve fit.

You also misread the article you posted. When they even obtained funding, it was par equal, they obtain funding less often.

Quote:
"The decade started with 9% of dollars going to female co-founded companies, and while the percentage climbed just slightly to 12%, dollars grew from $3 billion to $26 billion, a more than eightfold increase.

In comparison, companies with male founders raised $31 billion in 2010 and $195 billion in 2019."

So, 1:7.5 companies with female co-founders got funding, even though they were 1:5 companies. All female founder startups made up 1:20 of that number, but were funded 2.5% of the time in 2017-2019.

The overarching reality is there's no penalty for being all male founded, meanwhile all female companies are exponentially less likely to achieve funding at all.

Crunch base reports that even though the percentage of female founders has increased dramatically, the curve is effectively flat.

This reminds me of veritasiums video on luck or hard work.

@SortOfTested actually I mentioned this briefly in my original comment "(those that did get a seed round at all)". It's more helpful to compare equivalent scenarios.

if you just look at total dollar volume invested over thirty years, you lose the fact that only about 20% of startups (in 2019) have a woman founder at all.

That graph at the bottom of your comment shows in the range of 13-17% of VC dollars in the past 5 years went to teams with women. Only 20% of all teams have women on them. So it's not the same as women getting 2-3% of what men get. It's more like women get 90% of what men get.

Why does the Amazon building look like a giant glass nutsack?

And how can I get a job there?

@junon
- Why: We call them "jeff's balls"
- How: apply or network