ŷ������

Q:
All Rhodes Scholars had a great future in their past. (c)

So, 'stagnation or singularity'? Which one's it going to be?
A sneak peek into the world as the PayPal & Palantir guy sees it.

Q:
...the seven questions that every business must answer:
1. The Engineering QuestionCan you create breakthrough technology instead of incremental improvements?
2. The Timing QuestionIs now the right time to start your particular business?
3. The Monopoly QuestionAre you starting with a big share of a small market?
4. The People QuestionDo you have the right team?
5. The Distribution QuestionDo you have a way to not just create but deliver your product?
6. The Durability QuestionWill your market position be defensible 10 and 20 years into the future?
7. The Secret QuestionHave you identified a unique opportunity that others don’t see?
(c)
Q:
WHENEVER I INTERVIEW someone for a job, I like to ask this question: “What important truth do very few people agree with you on?�� ...
It’s intellectually difficult because the knowledge that everyone is taught in school is by definition agreed upon. And it’s psychologically difficult because anyone trying to answer must say something she knows to be unpopular. Brilliant thinking is rare, but courage is in even shorter supply than genius. (c)
Q:
if nothing about our society changes for the next 100 years, then the future is over 100 years away. If things change radically in the next decade, then the future is nearly at hand. (c)
Q:
... progress can take one of two forms. Horizontal or extensive progress means copying things that work—going from 1 to n. Horizontal progress is easy to imagine because we already know what it looks like. Vertical or intensive progress means doing new things—going from 0 to 1. Vertical progress is harder to imagine because it requires doing something nobody else has ever done. If you take one typewriter and build 100, you have made horizontal progress. If you have a typewriter and build a word processor, you have made vertical progress. (c)
Q:
And whatever the cultural fascination with Nirvana, grunge, and heroin reflected, it wasn’t hope or confidence. (c)
Q:
In this kind of environment, acting sanely began to seem eccentric. (c)
Q:
... the opposite principles are probably more correct:
1. It is better to risk boldness than triviality.
2. A bad plan is better than no plan.
3. Competitive markets destroy profits.
4. Sales matters just as much as product. (c)
Q:
What if we frame Google as a multifaceted technology company instead? (c)
Q:
Monopolies drive progress because the promise of years or even decades of monopoly profits provides a powerful incentive to innovate. Then monopolies can keep innovating because profits enable them to make the long-term plans and to finance the ambitious research projects that firms locked in competition can’t dream of.
So why are economists obsessed with competition as an ideal state? It’s a relic of history. Economists copied their mathematics from the work of 19th-century physicists: they see individuals and businesses as interchangeable atoms, not as unique creators. Their theories describe an equilibrium state of perfect competition because that’s what’s easy to model, not because it represents the best of business. (c)
Q:
“So, Peter, aren’t you glad you didn’t get that clerkship?�� With the benefit of hindsight, we both knew that winning that ultimate competition would have changed my life for the worse. Had I actually clerked on the Supreme Court, I probably would have spent my entire career taking depositions or drafting other people’s business deals instead of creating anything new. It’s hard to say how much would be different, but the opportunity costs were enormous. All Rhodes Scholars had a great future in their past. (c)
Q:
According to Marx, people fight because they are different. ... The greater the differences, the greater the conflict.
To Shakespeare, by contrast, all combatants look more or less alike. It’s not at all clear why they should be fighting, since they have nothing to fight about. ...
In the world of business, at least, Shakespeare proves the superior guide. Inside a firm, people become obsessed with their competitors for career advancement. Then the firms themselves become obsessed with their competitors in the marketplace. Amid all the human drama, people lose sight of what matters and focus on their rivals instead. (c)
Q:
One gets the sense that this Shakespearean saga won’t end until the apes run out of shapes.
The hazards of imitative competition may partially explain why individuals with an Asperger’s-like social ineptitude seem to be at an advantage in Silicon Valley today. If you’re less sensitive to social cues, you’re less likely to do the same things as everyone else around you. (c)
Q:
No one gets into Stanford by excelling at just one thing, unless that thing happens to involve throwing or catching a leather ball. (c)
Q:
... in exchange for better insurance contracts, we seem to have given up the search for secrets about longevity. (c)
Q:
A business with a good definite plan will always be underrated in a world where people see the future as random. (c)
Q:
... when thinking about what kind of company to build, there are two distinct questions to ask: What secrets is nature not telling you? What secrets are people not telling you? (c)
Q:
Strong AI is like a cosmic lottery ticket: if we win, we get utopia; if we lose, Skynet substitutes us out of existence. (c)

Ok, these, I almost docked a bunch of stars for:
Q:
One 40-something grad student that I knew was running six different companies in 1999. (Usually, it’s considered weird to be a 40-year-old graduate student. Usually, it’s considered insane to start a half-dozen companies at once. But in the late ��90s, people could believe that was a winning combination. (c)