Dan Morena, CTO at Upright.com, made the point that every startup was unique and therefore every startup had to find out what was best for it, while ignoring whatever was considered "best practice." I wrote what he told me here:
No army has ever conquered a country. An army conquers this muddy ditch over here, that open wheat field over there and then the adjoining farm buildings. It conquers that copse of lush oak trees next to the large outcropping of granite rocks. An army seizes that grassy hill top, it digs in on the west side of this particular fast flowing river, it gains control over the 12 story gray and red brick downtown office building, fighting room to room. If you are watching from a great distance, you might think that an army has conquered a country, but if you listen to the people who are involved in the struggle, then you are aware how much "a country" is an abstraction. The real work is made up of specifics: buildings, roads, trees, ditches, rivers, bushes, rocks, fields, houses. When a person talks in abstractions, it only shows how little they know. The people who have meaningful information talk about specifics.
Likewise, no one builds a startup. Instead, you build your startup, and your startup is completely unique, and possesses features that no other startup will ever have. Your success will depend on adapting to those attributes that make it unique.
Napoleon and his army would like to have a word with you…
I get the analogy but I think it can be made a lot better, which will decrease people who dismiss it because they got lost in where the wording doesn’t make sense. I’m pretty confident most would agree that country A conquered country B if country B was nothing but fire and rubble. It’s pretty common usage actually. Also, there’s plenty of examples of countries ruled by militaries. Even the US president is the head of the military. As for army, it’s fairly synonymous with military, only really diverting in recent usage.
Besides that, the Army Corp of engineers is well known to build bridges, roads, housing, and all sorts of things. But on the topic of corp, that’s part of the hierarchy. For yours a battalion, regiment, company, or platoon may work much better. A platoon or squad might take control of a building. A company might control a hill or river. But it takes a whole army to conquer a country because it is all these groups working together, even if often disconnected and not in unison, even with infighting and internal conflicts, they rally around the same end goals.
By I’m also not sure this fully aligns with what you say. It’s true that the naive only talk at abstract levels, but it’s common for experts too. But experts almost always leak specifics in because the abstraction is derived from a nuanced understanding. But we need to talk in both abstractions and in details. The necessity for abstraction only grows, but so does the whole pie.
It's a cute analogy, but like all analogies it breaks after inspection. One might try and salvage it by observing that military "best practice" in the field and Best Practice at HQ need not be, and commonly are not, the same, either for reasons of scope or expediency. Moreover, lower case "practice" tends to win more, more quickly. Eg guerillas tend to win battles quickly against hidebound formal armies.
For a startup, winning "battles, not wars," is what you need, because you have finite resources and have an exit in mind before you burn through them. For a large enterprise, "winning wars not battles" is important because you have big targets on your back (regulators, stock market, litigation).
One might paraphrase the whole shooting match with the ever-pithy statement that premature optimization is the root of all evil.
>> Also, there’s plenty of examples of countries ruled by militaries. Even the US president is the head of the military
Maybe I should have reversed the order of these two. I didn't intend to use the US as an example of a country ruled by a military but rather that military is integral and connected directly to the top.
> If you are watching from a great distance, you might think that an army has conquered a country, but if you listen to the people who are involved in the struggle, then you are aware how much "a country" is an abstraction.
Most things of any value are abstractions. You take a country by persuading everyone you've taken a country, the implementation details of that argument might involve some grassy hill tops, some fields and farm buildings, but its absolutely not the case that an army needs to control every field and every grassy hill top that makes up "a country" in order to take it. The abstraction is different to the sum of its specific parts.
If you try to invade a country by invading every concrete bit of it, you'll either fail to take it or have nothing of value at the end (i.e fail in your objective). The only reason it has ever been useful or even possible to invade countries is because countries are abstractions and it's the abstraction that is important.
> The real work is made up of specifics: buildings, roads, trees, ditches, rivers, bushes, rocks, fields, houses.
Specifics are important - failing to execute on specifics dooms any steps you might make to help achieve your objective, but if all you see is specifics you won't be able to come up with a coherent objective or choose a path that would stand a chance of getting you there.
The army that is conquering is carrying best practice weapons, wearing best practice boots, best practice fatigues, best practice tanks, trucks, etc.
They're best practice aiming, shooting, walking, communicating, hiring (mercs), hiding, etc...
The people that are in the weeds are just doing the most simple things for their personal situation as they're taking over that granite rock or "copse of lush oak trees".
It's easy to use a lot of words to pretend your point has meaning, but often, like KH - it doesn't.
This is frequently not true. There’s examples all through history of weaker and poorer armies defeating larger ones. From Zulus, to the American Revolution, to the great Emu wars. Surely the birds were not more advanced than men armed with machine guns. But it’s only when the smaller forces can take advantage and leverage what they have better than others. It’s best practices, but what’s best is not universal, it’s best for who, best for when, best for under what circumstances
That doesn't defeat my point- is the smaller/poorer army using best practices?
When all things are the same, the army with more will win.
When all things are not the same, there are little bonuses that can cause the smaller/poorer, malnourished army to win against those with machine guns. Often it's just knowing the territory. Again though, these people are individually making decisions. There isn't some massively smart borg ball sending individual orders to shoot 3 inches to the left to each drone.
> That doesn't defeat my point- is the smaller/poorer army using best practices?
I don't agree, but neither do I disagree. But I do think it is ambiguous enough that it is not using best practices to illustrate the point you intend.
> malnourished army to win against those with machine guns
Occasionally something novel and innovative beats the best practice. In that case it usually gradually gets adopted as best practice. More often it doesn't, and falls by the wayside.
I think the word you're looking for is "nation", not "country". A country is the land area and would be conquered in that example, while a nation is the more abstract entity made of the people. It's why it makes sense to talk about countries after the government falls, or nations without a country.
Likewise, people do business with people, not with companies. Assert that “society” is merely an abstraction invoked for political gain to become an individualist.
> people do business with people, not with companies
Many of my interactions are with electronic systems deployed by companies or the state. It's rare that I deal with an actual person a lot of the time (which is sad, but that's another story).
"Hierarchy is so baked in to every other company, organization, and education system that people just don't know how to operate absent it."
That's partly because it works. It is proven. It is well-known. We have excellent tooling for it. There is absolutely no need to change it. Changing does not bring any advantages. You cannot point to any company and say "That company was an outstanding success because they were flat and rejected all hierarchy." If you run a business then do you want to make a political point or do you want to make a profit?
"There are examples of stable large companies with flat org charts that do work, they're just not the hypergrowth scale-ups."
So why waste any time with them? What is the advantage? What is your real motivation? You seem more focused on some political agenda than you are focused on making a profit.
Progress towards what? Do you have some political goal? There is zero evidence that flatness increases profits. There is no company that we can point to and say “that company was successful because it was flat” (with the obvious exception of franchise models).
"It’s not practical. Hybrid work may be technically the best route, but it’s also complicated to oversee."
Who cares if workers are productive, when the leadership is clearly less productive? And the leadership's time is extremely valuable. If remote work makes workers more productive, while the leadership is less productive, then remote work is bad for a company, full stop, no other conversation is needed.
Wouldn’t it be cool if people got credit for reproducing other people’s work instead of only novel things. It’s like having someone on your team that loves maintaining but not feature building.
Completely irrelevant. Humans cannot survive in the conditions of the Cambrian. Merely going back to the Cambrian is enough to ensure our extinction. No one cares that the CO2 levels were higher then. What matters is that we will all be dead if we go anywhere near those levels.
"The way we discover interesting websites needs innovating, why not let anyone contribute to any webpage?"
I remember there was a website that did this in 1999, using frames to allow people to post comments on any website. The courts shot this down as an illegal infringement of trademark. Does anyone remember the name of that website that did this?
Since the crisis of 2008 the USA has had several trillion dollars in stimulus spending. Very roughly speaking, Europe pursued policies of austerity, whereas the USA followed a more Keynesian route of big spending. On this matter, the Keynesians have been vindicated. In 2007 the GDP of the EU was slightly larger than the USA, but now it has fallen far behind: $16 trillion ($18 trillion if it still had the UK) versus $25 trillion for the USA. And the most important policy difference since 2008 has been large stimulus spending in the USA, versus relative austerity in Europe. More recently, President Biden was able to push through some big infrastructure bills, which should power the USA through the 2020s. (There are some qualifiers to be added about weaknesses in the USA system of funding and allowing construction, in particular the aggressive system of "substantive due process" that allows for any project to be stalled by lawsuits, but despite that, the USA has done better than Europe.)
Most of the difference in GDP was because Dollar was a lot cheaper compared to Euro pre Recession.
Also EU just stagnate from 1990 until now it is yearly losing global share of GDP.
"Most of the difference in GDP was because Dollar was a lot cheaper compared to Euro pre Recession."
Yes, but why? There was a theory that massive stimulus spending would weaken the dollar because of the additional debt, but instead, the opposite happened. The USA did more stimulus spending and the dollar became stronger. Many people were surprised by this. Those people need to revisit their initial assumptions.
"hardware startups that have to raise a lot of money before a Series A are... considerably riskier, no?"
Why riskier? They have more of a moat don't they? The large capitalization needed suggests they will face less competition. It's more difficult for competitors to gather the necessary capital to compete against them?
What I've written here was the conventional wisdom for most of 200 years. Much of the Industrial Revolution played out when merely concentrating together capital was seen as an engine of growth. Rockefeller did not need to sell innovative gasoline, he only needed to use cash flow to buy up monopoly positions, one small region at a time, until he had the cash flow to buy up monopoly positions nationwide. Economies-of-scale meant that merely concentrating together capital was a path to greater profitability.
The last 25 years were an aberration, during which time big companies could be built with small initial investments. But over the course of centuries, the opposite was more common.
Is the moat that good for HW? The more commodified your product is, the more you risk losing to undifferentiated foreign competitors who have lower input costs.
And hardware marches on while you are trying to get your widget manufactured and shipped.
I was at a hardware startup in 2013/14. We had our own board design that was very similar to the RaspberryPi + Arduino that we'd prototyped with (we ended up using a iMX233 and an AT Mega 328). While we were debugging a manufacturing fault (out of spec led controllers), Expressif released the SDK for their at the time practically unknown ESP8862 - which meant 90% of our functionality could now be done with a BOM of around $15 instead of the $90 or so ours was costing us.
Our "moat" had been concreted over while we were pulling our hair out trying to ship in time for xmas. (And the business died in arguments, recriminations, fingerpointing, and a lack of ability to find investment to pay for a 2nd production run. And I needed up with another piece of paper saying I had a percentage or two of ownership in something now worth zero dollars...)
I was doing firmware in IoT/M2M for an engineering services company back then and it was the tail end of "slap a radio on [common product]" projects for that company. I saw a few projects end with the arguments and fingerpointing with inevitable laser focus on what the SOW actually said and it always sucked to end that way.
On a slightly different topic, we now know that a surprisingly large number of people suffer daytime "hallucinations without delusion" meaning they see things but they know the things are not real. And I've often wondered if that is some kind of dysfunction of the sleep cycle. If we think of dreams as a kind of hallucination, then is daytime "hallucination without delusion" a kind of dreaming while awake? I'd like to see more research on that question.
I agree with the use of Hetzner. I use them. Very cheap machine, very powerful. Very simple and straightforward. People need to think carefully about the possible expense and complexity of AWS. Hetzner is simple and straightforward.
https://respectfulleadership.substack.com/p/dan-morena-is-a-...
My summary of his idea:
No army has ever conquered a country. An army conquers this muddy ditch over here, that open wheat field over there and then the adjoining farm buildings. It conquers that copse of lush oak trees next to the large outcropping of granite rocks. An army seizes that grassy hill top, it digs in on the west side of this particular fast flowing river, it gains control over the 12 story gray and red brick downtown office building, fighting room to room. If you are watching from a great distance, you might think that an army has conquered a country, but if you listen to the people who are involved in the struggle, then you are aware how much "a country" is an abstraction. The real work is made up of specifics: buildings, roads, trees, ditches, rivers, bushes, rocks, fields, houses. When a person talks in abstractions, it only shows how little they know. The people who have meaningful information talk about specifics.
Likewise, no one builds a startup. Instead, you build your startup, and your startup is completely unique, and possesses features that no other startup will ever have. Your success will depend on adapting to those attributes that make it unique.
reply