Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Apply their trade secrets in your job !

Nice article:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-02-15/work/28542407_1_ideas-boss-trade-secrets

The formula for a successful career is not rocket science. You need vision, guts and an ample amount of common sense. This is precisely what many business leaders have proved time and again. However, certain habits can give you the extra edge that separates leaders from legends. Rama Iyer, an executive with a premier global leadership consulting company helps identify the traits of a few business icons and tells you how to apply their strategy to your life. It may not gurantee you the next Narayan Murthy tag but it will definitely earn you some brownie points.



The man behind the Apple brand is known to be extremely choosy about ideas that he approves. The strategy is always to allow only the choicest ideas to move ahead. Perhaps this explains why every year, instead of flooding the market, Jobs releases only one or two products and still manages to take the market by storm.
Lesson to learn:
Be picky
For most, the boss is the customer who needs to approve of an idea. However, for the boss, the customer lies outside the office. Probably why the boss' way of evaluating ideas is so different. In short, think of the customer, not the boss. The moment you do that, you will start throwing ideas out of the window yourself. Be tough on your ideas, think them through and learn to be the devil's advocate. Coming up with the concept is the easy part. The execution is where the drama lies.
Narayan Murthy
Infosys is credited for being one of the first movers towards stock-option plans. Murthy connected the employees' success directly to that of the company's. It's a sure shot road to respect and loyalty.
Lesson to learn:
Give others a stake
His move showed the emphasis on the individual capability and the initiative to have it recognised. He also wanted to keep the system transparent. People ought to know what's going on. The simplest way of doing that is to create a stake for your colleagues in what you are working on and connect their inputs directly to what they will gain out of it at the end.
Ratan Tata
The loyalty this man enjoys is a subject of envy for many. You may choose to dismiss one employee's admiration but when lakhs of them swear loyalty, it makes you sit up and take notice. Over the years, Ratan Tata might have headed the group across many uncharted territories, but one of his constant philosophies has been, 'People matter.' The Tata groups' employeefriendly policies are a prime example of how a good relationship with your employees can make for a successful business. you try, it will reflect in your interaction with them and the quality of their work. Simply put, thinking of having a successul career without strong professional ties is rather naive.
We aren't just talking about the politically correct mannerisms. It's acknowledging the fact that a certain person knows something that you don't and he/she might be able to add value to your work if you interact more often and listen. No one can execute a project single-handedly. So take everyone along with you.
Lesson to learn:
Invest in your professional relationships
At any level, starting from the lowest, it all boils down to the one key element — respect, across the board. When you aren't good to your fellow workers, no matter how hard.
During his teens, Zuckerberg experimented with Facebook because he wanted to 'do something cool.' The idea was simply to try his hands at something new. Combined with a tadka of passion, the platform's success took him to the TIME magazine's cover.
Lesson to learn:
Have fun
If you don't enjoy doing something, don't do it! When you are having fun on the job, the biggest of hurdles seem trivial.
Interest and ability inspire you to do anything. Mark was interested in doing something different. He could have improved Orkut, but he chose otherwise. Instead of working around a 'boring' template and bettering it with cosmetic changes, why not make something of your own. You may not hit a gold mine initially, but will surely learn a lot. Remember, there are always more 'fun' ways of doing things.
Richard Branson
He goes trotting around the globe, takes hot-air balloon rides and hobnobs with the world. What many often don't see is how his foreveron-the-move image adds a unique brand identity to his company. Considering how aggressively he networks, you wouldn't be surprised if the six degrees of separation theory is true.
Lesson to learn:
It's all about the network
Promote your collaboration with others and get known to them. Be known for the right reason not the wrong ones, which benefit you and your team.
This technique ensures that by hobnobbing with the right people, you keep yourself open to ideas from different and often unexpected quarters.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Nice site for some ISLAMIC gyan

Pole Shift ..nice and detailed article

Possible Pole Shift Occuring*** South Atlantic Anomaly is Growing!!
Ref: http://www.disclose.tv/forum/new-proof-pole-shift-is-happeneing-now-saa-is-growing-t40614.html

Image

Well, you don't get a better source than this! The British Geological Survey (Natural Environment Research Counsel) states that the "South Atlantic Anomaly" (SAA) is indeed growing. Read this excerpt below for an explanation:


Quote:
A magnetic reversal in progress?

The South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) is known to be growing in extent and spreading westwards from South Africa, as the Earth’s internal magnetic field rapidly weakens in this region. This may be early evidence of a forthcoming reversal in the direction of the Earth’s internal magnetic field. We do not know in detail precisely what occurs during such reversals, including the changes observed in the magnetic field and the time a reversal takes to complete. However these factors are important in knowing where the radiation risk may be increased and how the atmosphere might respond.


Earth’s magnetic field has had many highs, lows and reversals in its past. The last reversal was around 800,000 years ago. So the Earth is known to be able to re-generate its field and has done so during human pre-history. Understanding the development of the SAA may therefore be significant in understanding the reversal process and its impact on life and the natural environment.

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/highlight ... c2010.html

What is the South Atlantic Anomaly?
The Earth’s magnetic field, generated deep within the planet, is a shield against particle radiation from space. In the South Atlantic this shield is much weaker than elsewhere across the globe and radiation from space therefore penetrates deeper into the atmosphere. This region is known as the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) and the radiation in the SAA is a known hazard to satellites, spacecraft and high-altitude aircraft. 

Image

Monitoring changes in magnetic field
The radiation input into the atmosphere depends on the Sun’s magnetic and radiation activity and the geometry (or ‘shape’) of the Earth’s magnetic field. So, understanding the space environment, particularly during magnetic storms, is important. Equally important is understanding any changes over time in the magnetic field observed across the surface of the Earth – see also Long-term monitoring of the Earth’s magnetic field.

A magnetic reversal in progress?
The South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) is known to be growing in extent and spreading westwards from South Africa, as the Earth’s internal magnetic field rapidly weakens in this region. This may be early evidence of a forthcoming reversal in the direction of the Earth’s internal magnetic field. We do not know in detail precisely what occurs during such reversals, including the changes observed in the magnetic field and the time a reversal takes to complete. However these factors are important in knowing where the radiation risk may be increased and how the atmosphere might respond.

Image

Earth’s magnetic field has had many highs, lows and reversals in its past. The last reversal was around 800,000 years ago. So the Earth is known to be able to re-generate its field and has done so during human pre-history. Understanding the development of the SAA may therefore be significant in understanding the reversal process and its impact on life and the natural environment.

New South Georgia Magnetic Observatory
By establishing a magnetic observatory on South Georgia BGS geomagnetists will specifically help to develop our understanding of the SAA by:

Joined up monitoring
Directly observing changes in the SAA in a region (mid Atlantic Ocean) poorly covered by permanent magnetic observatories. In the middle of the ocean only Ascension Island, Tristan da Cunha and St Helena observatories can provide monitoring of the magnetic field and its changes. We need to better relate observations of the SAA made separately on the land masses of Africa and South America. South Georgia observatory will therefore be a key addition to this small network of observatories.

Improving predictions
Providing new data to construct better mathematical models of the magnetic field. Such models can be used to infer how the flow of liquid iron in the outer core of the Earth is changing. This fluid flow sustains our magnetic field and forecasting how it changes in time will help improve predictions of future change in the SAA.

Understanding the complete ‘Earth System’
Promoting collaboration between space scientists, concerned with Earth’s space environment, and geoscientists, concerned with Earth’s other environments. There are major communities of these researchers both in the UK and internationally and the expertise of both space- and geo-scientists are needed to fully understand the complete ‘Earth system’. Measuring, monitoring and modelling the Earth’s magnetic field is a key aspect of this understanding and that is BGS’ contribution to this endeavour.


Reference: http://www.disclose.tv/forum/new-proof-pole-shift-is-happeneing-now-saa-is-growing-t40614.html

Monday, March 14, 2011

How to Argue Effectively & Win.... nice read !



It can be difficult for people to get their point across without hurting one another in the process. Here are some tips for effectively resolving a problem by stating your views, while being collected and reasonable. Also included are tips on winning an argument.

Stay calm & Keep a steady low tone.
The energy you give off is usually picked up on by the other person; if you are calm they sense you mean no harm and relax more. Even if you get emotional, try to keep your dignity and don’t lash out unexpectedly. Also consider your tone of voice; try to keep a steady, low tone and volume, not fluctuating to much in speed and sound. Try to sound as relaxed as possible and avoid high-pitched sounds. Also consider your body language: have a good firm posture that makes your feel powerful but not agressive.

Don’t insult the other person.
Avoid to, in any way, avoid something that might be taken as an insult. When people are angry they are much more sensitive and will take even the smallest comment as an insult.

Express that you are willing to listen to the other person and respect them.
Even though you might not agree with what the other person is saying you need to remember that they might feel just as strongly about their views as you do about yours.

Be reasonable.
The outcome of the argument might not be exactly what you wanted, but never expect to get everything you want.

Don’t let it last too long, the argument degrades if it’s held out.

Allow each person to speak and make their point.

Set healthy boundaries.
If the person with whom you are arguing is angry, obnoxious or verbally abusive, should you really be interacting with them? It may be better to walk away.

If the argument is with a clerk, salesperson, etc. ask to speak with their supervisor. If a supervisor isn’t immediately available, get a phone number.


Winning an Argument -

Think about the possible arguments for and against your side, and the opposite side.
If there is any major weakness in your argument, you must fill it before coming to a confrontation with the opposition, or risk losing the argument.

Identify any major pitfalls your opponent can step into.
A gentle nudge here and there to get them to make some sort of fallacious statement that allows you to close the bear trap is psychologically damaging and can win an argument on the spot. Also try to take each argument to its logical conclusion.

Always take full advantage of any illogicality or fallacy in your opponent’s argument.
Return any illogical points with as many relevant logical facts as possible, to completely quash their point. If this is not possible, take their point and use it in your favor logically.
  
It’s always possible to lose an argument, especially if your argument has major weaknesses.
Accept it if that the case. However, arguments do sometimes come to standoffs, where no side is stronger than the other and nobody wins or loses. when this happens, learn to leave the argument as nothing can be gained by continuing to confront your opponent. When this happens, don’t lose control or get desperate.

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Japan and lessons to learn !



Dr A Gopalakrishnan, Former AERB Chief: There have been near misses. At Narora. Also the Kaiga dome which collapsed. Luckily they didn't result in a catastrophic incident.
 

India's plans to buy 21 foreign nuclear power reactors worries him more. Indian engineers will take time to grasp new and unfamiliar technologies - a dangerous situation in case of an accident.
 

Besides reactors like the European Pressurised Reactors EPR from the French firm Areva comprise unproven technologies. The negotiation process with foreign firms is secret and there is no distinction between buyer and seller.
 

So India may end up paying as much as Rs 20 crore per megawatt.
 

Former AERB Chief Dr A Gopalakrishnan said, "Why not big 700 MW power? We can get uranium from abroad. The government is hell bent on buying French technology because the Prime Minister has given his word to French President Sarkozy."
 

But for reasons clearly driven by the India-US nuclear deal and strategic considerations, the government is pushing ahead with its ambitious nuclear energy plan. Disregarding it would seem, the larger safety issues at stake.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Nice article on start ups !


October 2009

http://www.paulgraham.com/really.html

(This essay is derived from a talk at the 2009 Startup School.)

I wasn't sure what to talk about at Startup School, so I decided to ask the founders of the startups we'd funded. What hadn't I written about yet?

I'm in the unusual position of being able to test the essays I write about startups. I hope the ones on other topics are right, but I have no way to test them. The ones on startups get tested by about 70 people every 6 months.

So I sent all the founders an email asking what surprised them about starting a startup. This amounts to asking what I got wrong, because if I'd explained things well enough, nothing should have surprised them.

I'm proud to report I got one response saying:
What surprised me the most is that everything was actually fairly predictable!
The bad news is that I got over 100 other responses listing the surprises they encountered.

There were very clear patterns in the responses; it was remarkable how often several people had been surprised by exactly the same thing. These were the biggest:

1. Be Careful with Cofounders

This was the surprise mentioned by the most founders. There were two types of responses: that you have to be careful who you pick as a cofounder, and that you have to work hard to maintain your relationship.

What people wished they'd paid more attention to when choosing cofounders was character and commitment, not ability. This was particularly true with startups that failed. The lesson: don't pick cofounders who will flake.

Here's a typical reponse:
You haven't seen someone's true colors unless you've worked with them on a startup.
The reason character is so important is that it's tested more severely than in most other situations. One founder said explicitly that the relationship between founders was more important than ability:
I would rather cofound a startup with a friend than a stranger with higher output. Startups are so hard and emotional that the bonds and emotional and social support that come with friendship outweigh the extra output lost.
We learned this lesson a long time ago. If you look at the YC application, there are more questions about the commitment and relationship of the founders than their ability.

Founders of successful startups talked less about choosing cofounders and more about how hard they worked to maintain their relationship.
One thing that surprised me is how the relationship of startup founders goes from a friendship to a marriage. My relationship with my cofounder went from just being friends to seeing each other all the time, fretting over the finances and cleaning up shit. And the startup was our baby. I summed it up once like this: "It's like we're married, but we're not fucking."
Several people used that word "married." It's a far more intense relationship than you usually see between coworkers—partly because the stresses are so much greater, and partly because at first the founders are the whole company. So this relationship has to be built of top quality materials and carefully maintained. It's the basis of everything.

2. Startups Take Over Your Life

Just as the relationship between cofounders is more intense than it usually is between coworkers, so is the relationship between the founders and the company. Running a startup is not like having a job or being a student, because it never stops. This is so foreign to most people's experience that they don't get it till it happens. [1]
I didn't realize I would spend almost every waking moment either working or thinking about our startup. You enter a whole different way of life when it's your company vs. working for someone else's company.
It's exacerbated by the fast pace of startups, which makes it seem like time slows down:
I think the thing that's been most surprising to me is how one's perspective on time shifts. Working on our startup, I remember time seeming to stretch out, so that a month was a huge interval.
In the best case, total immersion can be exciting:
It's surprising how much you become consumed by your startup, in that you think about it day and night, but never once does it feel like "work."
Though I have to say, that quote is from someone we funded this summer. In a couple years he may not sound so chipper.

3. It's an Emotional Roller-coaster

This was another one lots of people were surprised about. The ups and downs were more extreme than they were prepared for.

In a startup, things seem great one moment and hopeless the next. And by next, I mean a couple hours later.
The emotional ups and downs were the biggest surprise for me. One day, we'd think of ourselves as the next Google and dream of buying islands; the next, we'd be pondering how to let our loved ones know of our utter failure; and on and on.
The hard part, obviously, is the lows. For a lot of founders that was the big surprise:
How hard it is to keep everyone motivated during rough days or weeks, i.e. how low the lows can be.
After a while, if you don't have significant success to cheer you up, it wears you out:
Your most basic advice to founders is "just don't die," but the energy to keep a company going in lieu of unburdening success isn't free; it is siphoned from the founders themselves.
There's a limit to how much you can take. If you get to the point where you can't keep working anymore, it's not the end of the world. Plenty of famous founders have had some failures along the way.

4. It Can Be Fun

The good news is, the highs are also very high. Several founders said what surprised them most about doing a startup was how fun it was:
I think you've left out just how fun it is to do a startup. I am more fulfilled in my work than pretty much any of my friends who did not start companies.
What they like most is the freedom:
I'm surprised by how much better it feels to be working on something that is challenging and creative, something I believe in, as opposed to the hired-gun stuff I was doing before. I knew it would feel better; what's surprising is how much better.
Frankly, though, if I've misled people here, I'm not eager to fix that. I'd rather have everyone think starting a startup is grim and hard than have founders go into it expecting it to be fun, and a few months later saying "This is supposed to be fun? Are you kidding?"

The truth is, it wouldn't be fun for most people. A lot of what we try to do in the application process is to weed out the people who wouldn't like it, both for our sake and theirs.

The best way to put it might be that starting a startup is fun the way a survivalist training course would be fun, if you're into that sort of thing. Which is to say, not at all, if you're not.

5. Persistence Is the Key

A lot of founders were surprised how important persistence was in startups. It was both a negative and a positive surprise: they were surprised both by the degree of persistence required
Everyone said how determined and resilient you must be, but going through it made me realize that the determination required was still understated.
and also by the degree to which persistence alone was able to dissolve obstacles:
If you are persistent, even problems that seem out of your control (i.e. immigration) seem to work themselves out.
Several founders mentioned specifically how much more important persistence was than intelligence.
I've been surprised again and again by just how much more important persistence is than raw intelligence.
This applies not just to intelligence but to ability in general, and that's why so many people said character was more important in choosing cofounders.

6. Think Long-Term

You need persistence because everything takes longer than you expect. A lot of people were surprised by that.
I'm continually surprised by how long everything can take. Assuming your product doesn't experience the explosive growth that very few products do, everything from development to dealmaking (especially dealmaking) seems to take 2-3x longer than I always imagine.
One reason founders are surprised is that because they work fast, they expect everyone else to. There's a shocking amount of shear stress at every point where a startup touches a more bureaucratic organization, like a big company or a VC fund. That's why fundraising and the enterprise market kill and maim so many startups. [2]

But I think the reason most founders are surprised by how long it takes is that they're overconfident. They think they're going to be an instant success, like YouTube or Facebook. You tell them only 1 out of 100 successful startups has a trajectory like that, and they all think "we're going to be that 1."

Maybe they'll listen to one of the more successful founders:
The top thing I didn't understand before going into it is that persistence is the name of the game. For the vast majority of startups that become successful, it's going to be a really long journey, at least 3 years and probably 5+.
There is a positive side to thinking longer-term. It's not just that you have to resign yourself to everything taking longer than it should. If you work patiently it's less stressful, and you can do better work:
Because we're relaxed, it's so much easier to have fun doing what we do. Gone is the awkward nervous energy fueled by the desperate need to not fail guiding our actions. We can concentrate on doing what's best for our company, product, employees and customers.
That's why things get so much better when you hit ramen profitability. You can shift into a different mode of working.

7. Lots of Little Things

We often emphasize how rarely startups win simply because they hit on some magic idea. I think founders have now gotten that into their heads. But a lot were surprised to find this also applies within startups. You have to do lots of different things:
It's much more of a grind than glamorous. A timeslice selected at random would more likely find me tracking down a weird DLL loading bug on Swedish Windows, or tracking down a bug in the financial model Excel spreadsheet the night before a board meeting, rather than having brilliant flashes of strategic insight.
Most hacker-founders would like to spend all their time programming. You won't get to, unless you fail. Which can be transformed into: If you spend all your time programming, you will fail.

The principle extends even into programming. There is rarely a single brilliant hack that ensures success:
I learnt never to bet on any one feature or deal or anything to bring you success. It is never a single thing. Everything is just incremental and you just have to keep doing lots of those things until you strike something.
Even in the rare cases where a clever hack makes your fortune, you probably won't know till later:
There is no such thing as a killer feature. Or at least you won't know what it is.
So the best strategy is to try lots of different things. The reason not to put all your eggs in one basket is not the usual one, which applies even when you know which basket is best. In a startup you don't even know that.

8. Start with Something Minimal

Lots of founders mentioned how important it was to launch with the simplest possible thing. By this point everyone knows you should release fast and iterate. It's practically a mantra at YC. But even so a lot of people seem to have been burned by not doing it:
Build the absolute smallest thing that can be considered a complete application and ship it.
Why do people take too long on the first version? Pride, mostly. They hate to release something that could be better. They worry what people will say about them. But you have to overcome this:
Doing something "simple" at first glance does not mean you aren't doing something meaningful, defensible, or valuable.
Don't worry what people will say. If your first version is so impressive that trolls don't make fun of it, you waited too long to launch. [3]

One founder said this should be your approach to all programming, not just startups, and I tend to agree.
Now, when coding, I try to think "How can I write this such that if people saw my code, they'd be amazed at how little there is and how little it does?"
Over-engineering is poison. It's not like doing extra work for extra credit. It's more like telling a lie that you then have to remember so you don't contradict it.

9. Engage Users

Product development is a conversation with the user that doesn't really start till you launch. Before you launch, you're like a police artist before he's shown the first version of his sketch to the witness.

It's so important to launch fast that it may be better to think of your initial version not as a product, but as a trick for getting users to start talking to you.
I learned to think about the initial stages of a startup as a giant experiment. All products should be considered experiments, and those that have a market show promising results extremely quickly.
Once you start talking to users, I guarantee you'll be surprised by what they tell you.
When you let customers tell you what they're after, they will often reveal amazing details about what they find valuable as well what they're willing to pay for.
The surprise is generally positive as well as negative. They won't like what you've built, but there will be other things they would like that would be trivially easy to implement. It's not till you start the conversation by launching the wrong thing that they can express (or perhaps even realize) what they're looking for.

10. Change Your Idea

To benefit from engaging with users you have to be willing to change your idea. We've always encouraged founders to see a startup idea as a hypothesis rather than a blueprint. And yet they're still surprised how well it works to change the idea.
Normally if you complain about something being hard, the general advice is to work harder. With a startup, I think you should find a problem that's easy for you to solve. Optimizing in solution-space is familiar and straightforward, but you can make enormous gains playing around in problem-space.
Whereas mere determination, without flexibility, is a greedy algorithm that may get you nothing more than a mediocre local maximum:
When someone is determined, there's still a danger that they'll follow a long, hard path that ultimately leads nowhere.
You want to push forward, but at the same time twist and turn to find the most promising path. One founder put it very succinctly:
Fast iteration is the key to success.
One reason this advice is so hard to follow is that people don't realize how hard it is to judge startup ideas, particularly their own. Experienced founders learn to keep an open mind:
Now I don't laugh at ideas anymore, because I realized how terrible I was at knowing if they were good or not.
You can never tell what will work. You just have to do whatever seems best at each point. We do this with YC itself. We still don't know if it will work, but it seems like a decent hypothesis.

11. Don't Worry about Competitors

When you think you've got a great idea, it's sort of like having a guilty conscience about something. All someone has to do is look at you funny, and you think "Oh my God, they know."

These alarms are almost always false:
Companies that seemed like competitors and threats at first glance usually never were when you really looked at it. Even if they were operating in the same area, they had a different goal.
One reason people overreact to competitors is that they overvalue ideas. If ideas really were the key, a competitor with the same idea would be a real threat. But it's usually execution that matters:
All the scares induced by seeing a new competitor pop up are forgotten weeks later. It always comes down to your own product and approach to the market.
This is generally true even if competitors get lots of attention.
Competitors riding on lots of good blogger perception aren't really the winners and can disappear from the map quickly. You need consumers after all.
Hype doesn't make satisfied users, at least not for something as complicated as technology.

12. It's Hard to Get Users

A lot of founders complained about how hard it was to get users, though.
I had no idea how much time and effort needed to go into attaining users.
This is a complicated topic. When you can't get users, it's hard to say whether the problem is lack of exposure, or whether the product's simply bad. Even good products can be blocked by switching or integration costs:
Getting people to use a new service is incredibly difficult. This is especially true for a service that other companies can use, because it requires their developers to do work. If you're small, they don't think it is urgent.[4]
The sharpest criticism of YC came from a founder who said we didn't focus enough on customer acquisition:
YC preaches "make something people want" as an engineering task, a never ending stream of feature after feature until enough people are happy and the application takes off. There's very little focus on the cost of customer acquisition.
This may be true; this may be something we need to fix, especially for applications like games. If you make something where the challenges are mostly technical, you can rely on word of mouth, like Google did. One founder was surprised by how well that worked for him:
There is an irrational fear that no one will buy your product. But if you work hard and incrementally make it better, there is no need to worry.
But with other types of startups you may win less by features and more by deals and marketing.

13. Expect the Worst with Deals

Deals fall through. That's a constant of the startup world. Startups are powerless, and good startup ideas generally seem wrong. So everyone is nervous about closing deals with you, and you have no way to make them.

This is particularly true with investors:
In retrospect, it would have been much better if we had operated under the assumption that we would never get any additional outside investment. That would have focused us on finding revenue streams early.
My advice is generally pessimistic. Assume you won't get money, and if someone does offer you any, assume you'll never get any more.
If someone offers you money, take it. You say it a lot, but I think it needs even more emphasizing. We had the opportunity to raise a lot more money than we did last year and I wish we had.
Why do founders ignore me? Mostly because they're optimistic by nature. The mistake is to be optimistic about things you can't control. By all means be optimistic about your ability to make something great. But you're asking for trouble if you're optimistic about big companies or investors.

14. Investors Are Clueless

A lot of founders mentioned how surprised they were by the cluelessness of investors:
They don't even know about the stuff they've invested in. I met some investors that had invested in a hardware device and when I asked them to demo the device they had difficulty switching it on.
Angels are a bit better than VCs, because they usually have startup experience themselves:
VC investors don't know half the time what they are talking about and are years behind in their thinking. A few were great, but 95% of the investors we dealt with were unprofessional, didn't seem to be very good at business or have any kind of creative vision. Angels were generally much better to talk to.
Why are founders surprised that VCs are clueless? I think it's because they seem so formidable.

The reason VCs seem formidable is that it's their profession to. You get to be a VC by convincing asset managers to trust you with hundreds of millions of dollars. How do you do that? You have to seem confident, and you have to seem like you understand technology. [5]

15. You May Have to Play Games

Because investors are so bad at judging you, you have to work harder than you should at selling yourself. One founder said the thing that surprised him most was
The degree to which feigning certitude impressed investors.
This is the thing that has surprised me most about YC founders' experiences. This summer we invited some of the alumni to talk to the new startups about fundraising, and pretty much 100% of their advice was about investor psychology. I thought I was cynical about VCs, but the founders were much more cynical.
A lot of what startup founders do is just posturing. It works.
VCs themselves have no idea of the extent to which the startups they like are the ones that are best at selling themselves to VCs.[6] It's exactly the same phenomenon we saw a step earlier. VCs get money by seeming confident to LPs, and founders get money by seeming confident to VCs.

16. Luck Is a Big Factor

With two such random linkages in the path between startups and money, it shouldn't be surprising that luck is a big factor in deals. And yet a lot of founders are surprised by it.
I didn't realize how much of a role luck plays and how much is outside of our control.
If you think about famous startups, it's pretty clear how big a role luck plays. Where would Microsoft be if IBM insisted on an exclusive license for DOS?

Why are founders fooled by this? Business guys probably aren't, but hackers are used to a world where skill is paramount, and you get what you deserve.
When we started our startup, I had bought the hype of the startup founder dream: that this is a game of skill. It is, in some ways. Having skill is valuable. So is being determined as all hell. But being lucky is the critical ingredient.
Actually the best model would be to say that the outcome is theproduct of skill, determination, and luck. No matter how much skill and determination you have, if you roll a zero for luck, the outcome is zero.

These quotes about luck are not from founders whose startups failed. Founders who fail quickly tend to blame themselves. Founders who succeed quickly don't usually realize how lucky they were. It's the ones in the middle who see how important luck is.

17. The Value of Community

A surprising number of founders said what surprised them most about starting a startup was the value of community. Some meant the micro-community of YC founders:
The immense value of the peer group of YC companies, and facing similar obstacles at similar times.
which shouldn't be that surprising, because that's why it's structured that way. Others were surprised at the value of the startup community in the larger sense:
How advantageous it is to live in Silicon Valley, where you can't help but hear all the cutting-edge tech and startup news, and run into useful people constantly.
The specific thing that surprised them most was the general spirit of benevolence:
One of the most surprising things I saw was the willingness of people to help us. Even people who had nothing to gain went out of their way to help our startup succeed.
and particularly how it extended all the way to the top:
The surprise for me was how accessible important and interesting people are. It's amazing how easily you can reach out to people and get immediate feedback.
This is one of the reasons I like being part of this world. Creating wealth is not a zero-sum game, so you don't have to stab people in the back to win.

18. You Get No Respect

There was one surprise founders mentioned that I'd forgotten about: that outside the startup world, startup founders get no respect.
In social settings, I found that I got a lot more respect when I said, "I worked on Microsoft Office" instead of "I work at a small startup you've never heard of called x."
Partly this is because the rest of the world just doesn't get startups, and partly it's yet another consequence of the fact that most good startup ideas seem bad:
If you pitch your idea to a random person, 95% of the time you'll find the person instinctively thinks the idea will be a flop and you're wasting your time (although they probably won't say this directly).
Unfortunately this extends even to dating:
It surprised me that being a startup founder does not get you more admiration from women.
I did know about that, but I'd forgotten.

19. Things Change as You Grow

The last big surprise founders mentioned is how much things changed as they grew. The biggest change was that you got to program even less:
Your job description as technical founder/CEO is completely rewritten every 6-12 months. Less coding, more managing/planning/company building, hiring, cleaning up messes, and generally getting things in place for what needs to happen a few months from now.
In particular, you now have to deal with employees, who often have different motivations:
I knew the founder equation and had been focused on it since I knew I wanted to start a startup as a 19 year old. The employee equation is quite different so it took me a while to get it down.
Fortunately, it can become a lot less stressful once you reach cruising altitude:
I'd say 75% of the stress is gone now from when we first started. Running a business is so much more enjoyable now. We're more confident. We're more patient. We fight less. We sleep more.
I wish I could say it was this way for every startup that succeeded, but 75% is probably on the high side.

The Super-Pattern

There were a few other patterns, but these were the biggest. One's first thought when looking at them all is to ask if there's a super-pattern, a pattern to the patterns.

I saw it immediately, and so did a YC founder I read the list to. These are supposed to be the surprises, the things I didn't tell people. What do they all have in common? They're all things I tell people. If I wrote a new essay with the same outline as this that wasn't summarizing the founders' responses, everyone would say I'd run out of ideas and was just repeating myself.

What is going on here?

When I look at the responses, the common theme is that starting a startup was like I said, but way more so. People just don't seem to get how different it is till they do it. Why? The key to that mystery is to ask, how different from what? Once you phrase it that way, the answer is obvious: from a job. Everyone's model of work is a job. It's completely pervasive. Even if you've never had a job, your parents probably did, along with practically every other adult you've met.

Unconsciously, everyone expects a startup to be like a job, and that explains most of the surprises. It explains why people are surprised how carefully you have to choose cofounders and how hard you have to work to maintain your relationship. You don't have to do that with coworkers. It explains why the ups and downs are surprisingly extreme. In a job there is much more damping. But it also explains why the good times are surprisingly good: most people can't imagine such freedom. As you go down the list, almost all the surprises are surprising in how much a startup differs from a job.

You probably can't overcome anything so pervasive as the model of work you grew up with. So the best solution is to be consciously aware of that. As you go into a startup, you'll be thinking "everyone says it's really extreme." Your next thought will probably be "but I can't believe it will be that bad." If you want to avoid being surprised, the next thought after that should be: "and the reason I can't believe it will be that bad is that my model of work is a job."







Notes

[1] Graduate students might understand it. In grad school you always feel you should be working on your thesis. It doesn't end every semester like classes do.

[2] The best way for a startup to engage with slow-moving organizations is to fork off separate processes to deal with them. It's when they're on the critical path that they kill you—when you depend on closing a deal to move forward. It's worth taking extreme measures to avoid that.

[3] This is a variant of Reid Hoffman's principle that if you aren't embarrassed by what you launch with, you waited too long to launch.

[4] The question to ask about what you've built is not whether it's good, but whether it's good enough to supply the activation energy required.

[5] Some VCs seem to understand technology because they actually do, but that's overkill; the defining test is whether you can talk about it well enough to convince limited partners.

[6] This is the same phenomenon you see with defense contractors or fashion brands. The dumber the customers, the more effort you expend on the process of selling things to them rather than making the things you sell.

Thanks: to Jessica Livingston for reading drafts of this, and to all the founders who responded to my email.


Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Short visit to India

It was great to land on own soil.. after approx. 1.5 years.. Nothing better to meet and see family members. Left Kuwait on 25th Feb - 2011 by Emirates (hop flight via dubai) and came back on 5th March, same flight.

Very refreshing, did all possible things in these days.. met relatives, friends and business friends...

Attended Dr. Zakir Naik;s seminar on 8th March -2011

It was great to see him live.. his answers, his terrific knowledge on comparative religion. People generally ends up with their questions but MashALLAH.. Dr Zakir doesnt end with his answers and deep knowledge on Islam and other religions.

May ALLAH bless him.. and the entire world !