HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Vinod Khosla recently stated that 90% of VCs add no value, 70% add negative value[1].

[1] https://blog.ycombinator.com/vinod-khosla-on-how-to-build-th...

⬐ None

None

⬐ mlthoughts2018

That’s a lot of percents.

⬐ sonnyblarney

He said that in the context of adding value on boards, i.e. providing strategic direction.

The fundamental impetus of VC's, i.e. 'capital' is generally a good thing for Entrepreneurs.

⬐ tozeur

I’m aware. I thought was implied. The primary function of VC of course is to provide the C.

⬐ sajid

The signal to noise ratio in this video is extremely high.

⬐ davidw

That goes for a lot of videos, TBH. Lots of introductions, jokes, uhms, ahs and other junk, and you can't even search them to look for, say, a thing you're interested in.

⬐ WhompingWindows

This was the exact reason I stopped listening to NDT's Star Talk. Wayyy too many mediocre jokes, intros, outros, how's it goings, what's ups, wayyy too little science.

⬐ hoaw

It is supposed to be like that. It is entertainment made for a broader audience. And it is also fairly "cheap" to make. If you want more science you can buy his books or watch cosmos (a new one is coming this year). Or you can "graduate" and go read more specific material. Someday someone might figure out how to make more specific content for a lot of people, but it mostly hasn't happened yet.

⬐ adpirz

Think OP meant lots of signal, ie, not much fluff.

⬐ davidw

Ah, ok. Still, I'd vastly prefer a transcript.

⬐ saurabh20n

90% of the page at the bottom is the transcript. Right below the audio file is the time annotated transcript as well. Might have been added after you opened it: should recheck.

⬐ oth001

Interesting how all comments which voice reasonable criticism of Vinod get deleted...

⬐ metildaa

YCombinator bans people left and right here on Hacker News for even the most tame calling out of VC Techbros for their criminal behavior.

Stay safe! The site operators of HN are off the chain, and hate discourse on this genre of topic. Probably has something to do with YCombinator also being a VC.

⬐ oth001

I'm sure it does. I thought it was an interesting talk nonetheless.

⬐ jhayward

There are several comments here about Khosla and his efforts to convert public right of way to private property on the California Coast. It's fair to ask, "why is this relevant to a video of his views on the future (tech)?"

It's relevant because the beach controversy shows that the future that Kohsla wants to create is inimicable to the future that I want to see. He sees a big-L libertarian future, where the strong eat the weak, wealth is the sole source of power, and the wealthy act with a large degree of impunity.

So at best, I would watch with that in mind and have to critique everything he says to pick apart when he is trying to advance that view, vs observations and ideas that are not tied to it. In this case, I haven't bothered. There are others I can listen to for insight.

⬐ hoaw

Yes, allocation of resources is pretty much _the_ issue right know in terms of the future. There is certainly a lot of opportunity to capture wealth for yourself, to mistreat the environment and in other ways "win". But in the end it is those who can afford to leave things on the table that are going to really win. The companies that can deliver more value to their employees, the cities can provide more affordable housing and the countries that are doing better in terms of e.g. emissions. It is by distributing rather than capturing wealth that people and societies are going to be able to do more than the ordinary. This is when you will afford to innovate and do so from a position of strength.

⬐ drak0n1c

You can make the argument against private ownership of certain types of land for the purposes of public benefit, but I don't see the environmental point in this case. Privately owned areas, particularly beaches, usually fare better environmentally than high-traffic public access beaches.

In the Philippines and Hawaii, beaches that are restricted due to indigenous sovereignty or private ownership don't have the litter and degraded reefs of their public beaches. Unfortunately there has been a tragedy of the commons with public access.

⬐ hoaw

I'm not arguing specifically about his actions, but about his actions in relation to the future. Like in any societal shift there are opportunities for the people who come out on top to leverage their position for themselves. Whether that is blocking public beaches or cheating the environment (like e.g. Volkswagen did).

But in the end you are cheating not only everyone else but also yourself. Volkswagen by falling behind in the shift to electric and Khosla in making his own community less viable. At the same time there are companies and communities out there, like Tesla (at lest for their customers), trying to do their best to provide as much value as possible.

While I get your point about tragedy of the commons I would still put that in the same category. I isn't like billionaires are the sole source of dysfunction in the world. It is a larger issue about giving up your own position for the benefit of more people so you all have something to build on. Certainly dysfunctional government, whether corrupt or democratically so, is part of that as well.

This is especially important with increasing complexity, and increased leverage in complexity. You can't really predict what specifically is going to make the difference.

⬐ None

None

⬐ evancharles

I'm weary of getting into this, but I don't think that's the right conclusion from the beach issue. I'm not intimately familiar but if you care about it, I'd recommend reading what he wrote about it. https://medium.com/@vkhosla/martins-beach-a-matter-of-princi...

(I work at Khosla Ventures and have raised money from Khosla in the past)

⬐ beatpanda

Here's a more recent status update from the other side of this dispute: https://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/whats-next-for-...

The Supreme Court refused to take up Khosla's most recent appeal, leaving in place the requirement that he leave the gate open to the access road to Martin's Beach.

It will be interesting to see what Khosla does now, given that he has exhausted his appeals in the court system.

⬐ iaabtpbtpnn

He claims he'll litigate for the rest of his life. I suspect he'll keep finding new ways to refuse to comply, each time getting a type of citation that is different from the others based on the letter of the law (though not its spirit), and appeal each one as far as it'll go.

⬐ joejerryronnie

And my reply to Khosla, in the immortal words of Jeff Spicoli, “You Dick!”

⬐ jlarocco

Disgusting. It's too bad he'll get away with it. Normal people would go to jail after a while.

⬐ throwaway-hn123

> (I work at Khosla Ventures and have raised money from Khosla in the past)

Shame on you.

⬐ iaabtpbtpnn

I've read his post, and I think it's "not even wrong", in the sense that his conception of his rights is so fundamentally out of touch with reality, his premises so faulty, that attempting to engage with the arguments he bases on them is not worthwhile for either side.

⬐ writepub

X's viewpoint on Y needn't have any logical correlation/causation on X's viewpoint on Z, assuming Y & Z are orthogonal and independent.

It is fair to criticize Khosla on beach access, but his investment record is self explanatory for his opinions on tech to be worthy of an audience.

If you believe otherwise, you may also believe boycotting [YC, HN] to be valid and fair, for giving Khosla a platform, and accepting funding for post-seed rounds. This would be wrong. What we need in the valley echo-chamber is a way to disagree without carrying grudges. Diversity of thought is just as valuable as diversity of the labor force.

Most importantly, Khosla's funding, though self-serving, creates jobs and helps companies - that's something we can all get behind unequivocally

⬐ TACIXAT

What is particularly impressive about his portfolio? The whole idea of venture capital is placing many bets. In fact elsewhere in this thread people used that same logic to excuse his bad bets. So if you put money into just about every company that gains traction in the SV, why would that indicate brilliance when some of them hit big valuations?

⬐ None

None

⬐ chasing

It reveals character.

And we all have the freedom and luxury to decide how we want to react to that revelation.

⬐ iaabtpbtpnn

Strongly agreed. I don't even think I could work for a startup funded by Khosla Ventures.

⬐ mud_dauber

Also strongly agreed.

⬐ q845712

I logged into my HN account for the first time in months just to upvote and add my agreement

⬐ heyjudy

When capitalists push humanity to the brink of collapse out of primarily short-term self-interest to expand their largess beyond material success in their domains that it cannibalizes public commonwealth and corrupts governments to add to ill-gotten gains, while people are so poor that they camp on highway on-ramps in San Jose, they're plotting their own course to the next Reign of Terror by unfairly gaming government and rigging the system to their own ends, instead of the advancement of humanity. After all: what rational and sane person wants to live in a poor or dystopian country? Why not build up a country with a carbon sequestration moonshot than seek to deregulate in regulatory capture and destroy the commonwealth?

To sum up: a person whose goals are solely money by any and all means is therefore a criminal: antisocial and unconcerned with others.

⬐ dangero

They talk in detail about how at many well known startups, the early employees went on to start their own companies, which indicates that they were good early hires because they were great entrepreneurial thinkers.

It seems highly likely to me that the reason so many of the first employees started their own companies later is because they got a great exit and didn't need a regular job after that. In addition the experience of being an early employee at a unicorn startup probably teaches you a lot about how to build something similar again.

⬐ StreamBright

I am not sure how relevant the view of these billionaires when:

- they did it exactly once

- we know from studies that these people are nondeterministicly getting rich[1]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-...

⬐ ryandrake

People forget that Survivorship Bias is real.

I’m reminded of the coin toss example in one of my college classes. Everyone in the class stood up and flipped a coin. If it was tails you lose and sit down. Flip again and again until there was only one person standing. Then the prof “interviewed” him to ask him how he became such a good heads-flipper and what advice he had for other aspiring heads-flippers.

Listening only to people who struck it rich in business is like getting lottery advice from only lottery winners.

⬐ ryanmercer

In regards to that article:

>If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance.

Someone in the industry, someone with considerable influence, someone active on this very forum, once told me when asked what their secret was "I worry it's been more luck than skill".

At the time my immediate thought was "bullshit, you had to have busted your ass but your background also had to have had great influence but hey fine, don't tell me". But as time has passed, much reflection, looking at their peers I now fully believe it. It was largely luck. While the individual had an interesting idea which started their journey towards success, they've had fortunate event/connection after fortunate event/connection that have allowed them to get where they are today. That has allowed them to be doing what they want to do, pursuing what they want to be pursuing, working towards a goal that they want more than anything else.

I'd say 10% idea, 20% work ethic, 70% luck.

Wish I had some luck (and maybe the ability to pass some hindsight of my personal life back to a much younger me so I'd have gotten a degree, avoided my personal bankruptcy and thus been in a much better position to actually get opportunities but alas).

⬐ sjg007

There is an element of luck with anything in life: Being in the right place at the right time, being the right person as well as recognizing the opportunity. SV is a lucky place, YC is a lucky place, Stanford (or even a University) is a lucky place. How do you get to those places? You typically have to work hard at something to get the opportunity.

⬐ naravara

In a lot of cases I would say that working your ass off basically buys you the lottery ticket, but whether it pays off is largely luck. Innate talent and ability might skew the odds in your favor slightly, but I think it's more likely that they just lower the work-cost of the lottery ticket.

⬐ uniformlyrandom

Exactly. You cannot make it without luck (you need to be in the right place at the right time), but you greatly improve your chances if you are at the right place most of the time.

⬐ sidlls

Being at the right place requires a fair bit of luck, too.

⬐ josh2600

Vinod has won more than once (see Daisy Systems and his very large number of billion dollar investments).

⬐ leesec

Yeah, might as well never listen to anyone then.

⬐ StreamBright

I totally listen to reasonable people talking about reasonable things. However, I would never use the reason that somebody is a billionaire to pay more attention.

Let me give you examples.

Elon Musk in Windows (I disagree with him, even in 2000, Linux kernel version 2.2.12-20, RedHat version 6.1 --old versioning--)

"In the year of 2000, Windows is considered much better than good old Unix platform. Musk wanted to move all technologies from UNIX to Windows platform. But, Unix zealots like Max Levchian (Co-founder of Confinity[1]) and his team disagreed with Elon. A holy war started, and Elon Musk lost the battle. The board fired Elon in October 2000, and appointed Peter Thiel as new CEO. Elon officially left the company's day to day operations by 2001, though he stayed on in an advisory role and as the largest shareholder."

Jeff Bezos Mandate, internal APIs (I agree with him 80% of his points, not because he is billionaire but because his argument is reasonable for the size of company he was running at the time)

" 1) All teams will henceforth expose their data and functionality through service interfaces.

2) Teams must communicate with each other through these interfaces.

3) There will be no other form of interprocess communication allowed: no direct linking, no direct reads of another team's data store, no shared-memory model, no back-doors whatsoever. The only communication allowed is via service interface calls over the network.

4) It doesn't matter what technology they use. HTTP, Corba, Pubsub, custom protocols -- doesn't matter. Bezos doesn't care.

5) All service interfaces, without exception, must be designed from the ground up to be externalizable. That is to say, the team must plan and design to be able to expose the interface to developers in the outside world. No exceptions. "

And so on. After working with many millionaires and billionaires I just realised that it does not matter what they say without a good argument, I have seen CEOs fired just like Elon Musk over decisions similar to move the company stack to Windows and I also have seen CEOs listening to staff and making an intelligent decision that moved the company forward. I definitely like to listen to people with reasonable arguments, especially if the things they are suggesting works.

⬐ mattkrause

Out of curiosity, what's wrong with the Bezos thing?

It's maybe a little dogmatic, but it also means that any useful internal tools can be turned into an AWS service, which seems like it's been a decent strategy for Amazon.

⬐ StreamBright

I would disagree with him on this point:

>>> It doesn't matter what technology they use.

I think it does though, you might want to limit this to few options so people cannot expose APIs using tech that nobody else nows.

⬐ gaius

Slight tangent: at one company, years after Yegge’s blog post, a senior manager presented those principles as his own cunningly developed strategy. The ridicule was palpable.

⬐ statictype

I guess that invalidates the “No one got fired for choosing Microsoft” argument

⬐ ikeboy

"studies" aka computer models that assume luck is a significant factor and then conclude luck is a significant factor

⬐ toufiqbarhamov

One view is that paying close attention to someone, praising their acumen and acting like they know the secrets to the universe, is essentially a kind of sycophantic behavior. Like most such behavior the goal isn’t emulation of behavior to emulate result, but to gain favor. Powerful, successful people like to build mythologies, and have a habit of rewarding people who flatter that myth, and punishing those who don’t. So when a lot of people stand in awe of someone who holds the purse strings to their dreams, it pays to really consider their motives.

For the average person buying a “How I Made My First Billion” book, it’s just that they’re unaware of anything, but the myth. Since the myth is being propagated by very smart and successful people, it’s that much more convincing to them. In turn the myth makes getting investment and ‘airtime’ easier, which feeds back into success. The mistake people make is thinking that Fake It Till You Make It ends at success, truthfully it only ramps up then.

Edit: This isn’t to say that the likes of Altman, Gates and others are not genuinely intelligent and capable, just that the magnitude of their success isn’t something you can reliably copy, or that beyond their core competence, they have any special insight. Yet the myth tends to extend far beyond that, and I think unjustifiably, although understandably so.

⬐ 1024core

My comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18866778 got downvoted and flagged because I called out Khosla's selfish and boorish behavior. Apparently calling a spade a spade doesn't sit well with some of the hive mind here.

⬐ reitzensteinm

As somebody that agrees with you on the issue, your comment was down voted (not by me) because it was aggressive and rambling.

⬐ 1024core

Possibly. But this case really touched a nerve when I heard about it when the whole saga started.

Here we are, a community that often cares about the rest of the world; we provide shit-tons of free labor to the world at large; most hackers I know have a good heart; many of us give away products that we could really be charging for; etc. etc.

And this guy has absolutely no decency to share and be a good citizen! He's been suing anybody who disagrees with him, throwing his money at lawyers and just dragging the process along. He has benefited from the labors of others over the years (SunOS was based on BSD, for instance). But he continues to be a jerk.

BTW: this is not his first rodeo. 20+ years ago (memory is fuzzy, so apologies in advance) there was drought in the Bay Area. There were water use restrictions, and watering your lawns was forbidden/aggressively discouraged. But who in the Valley was the #1 consumer of water, using millions of gallons to water his precious lawns? Vinod Fucking Khosla.

⬐ netvarun

I think it's a tired meme - just like the 'Stephen (Wolfram) The Braggadocio' meme. It starts getting quite annoying after a while. Especially in the latter case since Stephen blogs quite a bit and lot of his articles do trend on HN.

Repeatedly pointing out, hmm, their 'flaws', just detracts from the actual subject matter. And btw, I did enjoy this talk and likewise most of Stephen's blog posts/writings. [Only exception when such a comment would be warranted is when Stephen talks about humility ;)]

⬐ 1024core

There's a difference between being a braggadicio, and being an actively bad citizen.

He has a demonstrated long history of selfishness and standing against common good. Should we be taking ideas from him? Well, if he was talking about some technical topic, I can understand your point. But "how to build a future" ....? Do we really want to learn "how to build a future" from such a selfish person?

⬐ PostOnce

There's more to life--and business--than money. Do we want to take advice from a man who hates the public? Do we want to build that future?

Even if what he says sounds legitimate, should we not question whether there are motives and ethics unmentioned that we might not have noticed, given his past behavior?

Should we mention it to viewers who may not be aware of who the man is, so they can ask those same questions as they watch?

If a man runs for office, and it turns out he used to be a member of the Klan, should that not weigh on the rest of his speeches, since presumably you can determine who he is not from what he has said, but from what he has done?

⬐ m0llusk

Hates the public? Are you sure? He bought some property and dared to imagine he actually owned it. Foolish and untrue, but at some level reasonable enough. None of that changes the demonstrated value of his advice regarding business.

⬐ PostOnce

It may not change the value of his business advice... but then again, it may. It may be that he doesn't care about people. It may be that he would recommend you pollute a river to save money. I'm not saying his advice is without merit, I'm just saying there may be side effects of his advice that he's not mentioning, given who he seems to be as a person.

All that said, I haven't met him, I've just read the news, and maybe they have their own narrative and that isn't who he really is. I'm just saying we should consider both sides.

⬐ drak0n1c

Ad hominem should not totally discount ideas in an unrelated discussion. Of course you should weigh someone's biases and conduct with what they are saying to the degree that their credibility is relevant to each point (for example, if they are relying on their personal experience and aren't mentioning supporting evidence). However, I don't see how the trend of totally "cancelling" people is good for discourse or the pursuit of reason.

⬐ newyankee

As much brilliant as Vinod Khosla is, i always think about him as the billionare who blocked public beaches

⬐ ronilan

He chose his own biography title:

“Khosla, Gatekeeper”

⬐ chasing

http://davidlansing.com/an-irish-joke/

⬐ jamesblonde

The society that lets you get away with it is also culpable.

⬐ unknownkadath

No offense intended, but that's kind of blaming the victim on a whole other level.

⬐ dqpb

I think blaming the victim is cruel in the case where the victim is powerless to defend themselves. But in the case where the victim simply failed to defend and fight for themselves I think it's important to criticize them.

⬐ unknownkadath

In what way have the victims failed to fight for themselves? The beach access issue is kind of a thing all up and down the California coast.

⬐ dqpb

My comment was specifically about the "don't blame the victim" thought-terminating-cliche. I'm not up to speed on the specifics of California coast access.

⬐ subway

Worse than just letting him get away with it, we're still promoting his ideals by giving him a platform.

Shame on Vinod, and shame on YC/Sam.

⬐ quxbar

Pretty sure that's what Jack the Ripper said to himself.

⬐ asdfasgasdgasdg

Even if that were true (it ain't), society isn't "letting him get away with it." It's processing the issue through the legal system, which unfortunately takes time.

⬐ jamesblonde

I would not say unfortunately, i would say that it has become that way to reflect power interests. I am a surfer so i feel for the affected...

⬐ AlexandrB

Yup. Judging by his recent actions Vinod Khosla believes that you build the future by getting enmeshed in costly litigation with government agencies over access to public property.

⬐ None

None

⬐ joelbondurant

Party at Martin's beach when Vinod dies!

⬐ ProAm

This is the public beach lawsuit guy right?

⬐ ilrwbwrkhv

i have never heard about him. he sounds like those indian gurus and scammers. who says "my great analogy". sam altman is so much clearer in his videos, why is he interviewing this guy?

⬐ None

None

⬐ thrillgore

I'm not going to give Vinod any thought or consideration until he stops his seizure of public lands.

⬐ 1024core

Yes, he's the dick who blocked access to a much beloved public beach. I honestly feel that we should not be giving him a platform. As techies, if we start boycotting this cunt, then maybe he'll learn a lesson that bad behavior has consequences.

But, sadly, in our community, $$$ rules. He has the $$$. So he'll get the platform, regardless of how much of an asshole he is. No different than Trump, really.

⬐ rhacker

Your comment among about 5 others have made a difference. I decided not to watch, and also upvote everyone that mentioned this issue.

⬐ tomlock

I find it hard to take Altman seriously as a well-reasoned thinker after his comments on political correctness which were intermeshed with him praising China's approach to the topic.

⬐ TACIXAT

Context on his comments?

Edit: http://blog.samaltman.com/e-pur-si-muove

I don't see anything awful in here. There are absolutely people in the bay area who wish to silence other opinions. I'm a pretty liberal person and this place is ridiculous.

⬐ tomlock

There are literally arms of the government in China that wish to silence other opinions.

If Altman feels comfortable in China it is only because he is divorced from the context there.

⬐ thinkcontext

I'm surprised he's still considered relevant given how spectacularly his cellulosic ethanol companies failed, taking probably hundred of $M's in investor and government money with them. http://fortune.com/kior-vinod-khosla-clean-tech

edit: fixed the link

⬐ jonas21

Why? Anyone who makes investments in new technologies can expect some of them to work out poorly.

⬐ thinkcontext

This was more than one in a portfolio of investments that didn't work out. He was feted on TED and other venues and hailed as a greentech prophet for making grand pronouncements about how ethanol from wood chips was going to crush oil on a very short timeline. In addition to all the investor money, he secured substantial federal and state money for his projects. But his technology could not do what he promised, see the article talk about misleading statements about yield he talked about publicly vs what was actually happening. And to this day no non-corn ethanol company in the US has been able to be economic even with huge incentives.

⬐ None

None

⬐ CaptainJustin

That page seems to be down. Google cache version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Src7CXm...

⬐ None

None

⬐ sonnyblarney

80% of VC investments are essentially failures, it doesn't mean they were bad bets, or even wasted time.

More to the point, everything Vinod said was fairly reasonable, some of it even contrarian (i.e. 'most VC's don't add value) which is useful given that most VC's wouldn't even dare say such a thing ... it allows for a conversation wherein one would not normally be possible.

Sam, for all of his influence and insight, doesn't yet have the clout/standing/safety to make such public statements about his own industry without severely risking his neck (and YC reputation as well). Very few people do, in any industry. I always like to hear someone taking 'their own' to task.

⬐ thinkcontext

> everything Vinod said was fairly reasonable

He was promising he could beat gasoline at $1.80/gallon by misstating the yield of ethanol per ton of wood chips.

From the Fortune article I posted:

> The Securities and Exchange Commission has been examining whether the company made false statements, including on a critical point: the yield of its biofuel (the amount that can be made per ton of wood chips). Two KiOR executives and Khosla himself are also facing a class action suit alleging that company executives misled investors about production volumes and yield.

...

> During investor calls in 2012, CEO Cannon said KiOR expected to achieve 72 gallons at a larger commercial production facility in the future and would aim to reach 92.

> The problem was that the company wasn’t regularly producing anything close to 67, much less 92. In the summer of 2011, after the company’s IPO, its new chief operating officer, Bill Coates, told management that it appeared that the company had grossly overstated its yields, according to a KiOR consultant who spoke with him and was quoted in the state’s court papers.