Add files using upload-large-folder tool

.ipynb_checkpoints/job_A100-checkpoint.sh

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+#!/bin/bash
+
+#SBATCH --job-name=rh_q7b
+#SBATCH --nodes=1                     # Request 1 compute node per job instance
+#SBATCH --cpus-per-task=4
+#SBATCH --gres=gpu:a100:1
+#SBATCH --mem=36GB                     # Request 2GB of RAM per job instance
+#SBATCH --time=02:30:00                # Request 10 mins per job instance
+#SBATCH --output=/scratch/spp9399/output_logs/rh_outputs/qwen25_7b_og_%A.out  # The output will be saved here. %A will be replaced by the slurm job ID, and %a will be replaced by the SLURM_ARRAY_TASK_ID
+#SBATCH [email protected]    # Email address
+#SBATCH --mail-type=BEGIN,END         # Send an email when all the instances of this job are completed
+
+module purge                          # unload all currently loaded modules in the environment
+
+
+MODEL_PATH="/scratch/spp9399/LLMS/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct"
+PYTORCH_CUDA_ALLOC_CONF=expandable_segments:True /scratch/spp9399/env/retrieval_heads/run_env.sh python3 retrieval_head_detection.py --model_path $MODEL_PATH --s 0 --e 50000

.ipynb_checkpoints/job_A100_phi-checkpoint.sh

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+#!/bin/bash
+
+#SBATCH --job-name=phi
+#SBATCH --nodes=1                     # Request 1 compute node per job instance
+#SBATCH --cpus-per-task=4
+#SBATCH --gres=gpu:a100:2
+#SBATCH --mem=64GB                     # Request 2GB of RAM per job instance
+#SBATCH --time=02:00:00                # Request 10 mins per job instance
+#SBATCH --output=/scratch/spp9399/output_logs/rh_outputs/phi_%A.out  # The output will be saved here. %A will be replaced by the slurm job ID, and %a will be replaced by the SLURM_ARRAY_TASK_ID
+#SBATCH [email protected]    # Email address
+#SBATCH --mail-type=BEGIN,END         # Send an email when all the instances of this job are completed
+
+module purge                          # unload all currently loaded modules in the environment
+
+export WANDB_ENTITY=ETNLP_Project
+export WANDB_PROJECT=retrieval-head-detection
+
+MODEL_PATH="/scratch/spp9399/LLMS/Phi-3.5-mini-instruct"
+# PYTORCH_CUDA_ALLOC_CONF=expandable_segments:True /scratch/spp9399/env/retrieval_heads/run_env.sh python3 retrieval_head_detection.py --model_path $MODEL_PATH -s 0 -e 50000 --haystack_dir /scratch/spp9399/ETNLP/original/Retrieval_Head/haystack_for_detect/en --needle_lg en --exp_name phi_35_mini_inst_en
+
+PYTORCH_CUDA_ALLOC_CONF=expandable_segments:True /scratch/spp9399/env/retrieval_heads/run_env.sh python3 retrieval_head_detection.py --model_path $MODEL_PATH -s 0 -e 50000 --haystack_dir /scratch/spp9399/ETNLP/original/Retrieval_Head/haystack_for_detect/zh --needle_lg zh --exp_name phi_35_mini_inst_zh
+
+# PYTORCH_CUDA_ALLOC_CONF=expandable_segments:True /scratch/spp9399/env/retrieval_heads/run_env.sh python3 retrieval_head_detection.py --model_path $MODEL_PATH -s 0 -e 50000 --haystack_dir /scratch/spp9399/ETNLP/original/Retrieval_Head/haystack_for_detect/de --needle_lg de --exp_name phi_35_mini_inst_de

.ipynb_checkpoints/retrieval_head_detection-checkpoint.py

@@ -0,0 +1,640 @@
+"""
+This script is adapted from 
+https://github.com/gkamradt/LLMTest_NeedleInAHaystack
+
+# GPT-4
+(
+python -u needle_in_haystack.py --s_len 0 --e_len 128000\
+    --model_provider OpenAI\
+    --model_name gpt-4-1106-preview
+    --api_key $OPENAI_API_KEY
+) 2>&1  | tee logs/eval_gpt_4_128k.log
+
+# LLaMA 2 32K. Remember to download the model first
+(
+python -u needle_in_haystack.py --s_len 0 --e_len 128000\
+    --model_provider LLaMA\
+    --model_path ../../../Llama-2-7B-32K-Instruct
+) 2>&1  | tee logs/eval_llama2_32k_instruct.log
+
+# LongChat. Remember to download the model first
+(
+python -u needle_in_haystack.py --s_len 0 --e_len 128000\
+    --model_provider LLaMA\
+    --model_path /ML-A800/models/longchat-7b-v1.5-32k
+) 2>&1  | tee logs/eval_longchat.log
+
+# Our llama-2-7b-80k, requires 4*80G A100
+# require you to download the model first
+(
+python -u needle_in_haystack.py --s_len 0 --e_len 128000\
+    --model_provider LLaMA\
+    --model_path ../../../llama-2-7b-80k
+) 2>&1  | tee logs/eval_llama-2-7b-80k.log
+"""
+
+#import tiktoken
+import os 
+import glob
+import json
+from transformers import AutoTokenizer, AutoModel, AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoConfig
+import sys
+sys.path.append("./faiss_attn/")
+from source.modeling_llama import LlamaForCausalLM
+from source.modeling_qwen2 import Qwen2ForCausalLM
+from source.modeling_mixtral import MixtralForCausalLM
+from source.modeling_mistral import MistralForCausalLM
+from source.modeling_phi3 import Phi3ForCausalLM
+import numpy as np
+import argparse
+from rouge_score import rouge_scorer
+from datetime import datetime, timezone
+from collections import defaultdict
+import time
+import torch
+
+import wandb
+from rouge_chinese import Rouge
+import jieba
+from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
+import matplotlib.patches as mpatches
+
+
+def reset_rope(model, model_max_train_len, scaling_factor):
+    for l in model.model.layers:
+        l.self_attn.rotary_emb.scaling_factor = scaling_factor
+        l.self_attn.rotary_emb._set_cos_sin_cache(seq_len=model_max_train_len, device=l.self_attn.rotary_emb.inv_freq.device, dtype=torch.float32)
+    return
+scorer = rouge_scorer.RougeScorer(['rouge1', 'rougeL'], use_stemmer=True)
+scorer_zh = Rouge()
+
+class LLMNeedleHaystackTester:
+    """
+    This class is used to test the LLM Needle Haystack.
+    """
+    def __init__(self,
+                needle="\nThe best thing to do in San Francisco is eat a sandwich and sit in Dolores Park on a sunny day.\n",
+                haystack_dir="./haystack_for_detect/wiki_en/",
+                retrieval_question="What is the best thing to do in San Francisco?",
+                results_version = 1,
+                context_lengths_min = 1000,
+                context_lengths_max = 50000,
+                context_lengths_num_intervals = 20,
+                context_lengths = None,
+                document_depth_percent_min = 0,
+                document_depth_percent_max = 100,
+                document_depth_percent_intervals = 10,
+                document_depth_percents = None,
+                document_depth_percent_interval_type = "linear",
+                model_provider = "OpenAI",
+                model_name='',
+                model_name_suffix=None,
+                num_concurrent_requests = 1,
+                save_results = True,
+                save_contexts = True,
+                final_context_length_buffer = 200,
+                seconds_to_sleep_between_completions = None,
+                print_ongoing_status = True,
+                exp_name=None,
+                needle_lg=None):
+        """        
+        :param needle: The needle to be found in the haystack. Default is None.
+        :param haystack_dir: The directory of text files to use as background context (or a haystack) in which the needle is to be found. Default is Paul Graham Essays.
+        :param retrieval_question: The question which with to prompt the model to do the retrieval.
+        :param results_version: In case you would like to try the same combination of model, context length, and depth % multiple times, change the results version other than 1
+        :param num_concurrent_requests: Due to volume, this object is set up to run concurrent requests, default = 1. Be careful of rate limits.
+        :param save_results: Whether or not you would like to save your contexts to file. Warning: These will get long! Default = True
+        :param save_contexts: Whether or not you would like to save your contexts to file. Warning: These will get long! Default is True.
+        :param final_context_length_buffer: The amount of cushion you'd like to leave off the input context to allow for the output context. Default 200 tokens
+        :param context_lengths_min: The minimum length of the context. Default is 1000.
+        :param context_lengths_max: The maximum length of the context. Default is 200000.
+        :param context_lengths_num_intervals: The number of intervals for the context length. Default is 35.
+        :param context_lengths: The lengths of the context. Default is None.
+        :param document_depth_percent_min: The minimum depth percent of the document. Default is 0.
+        :param document_depth_percent_max: The maximum depth percent of the document. Default is 100.
+        :param document_depth_percent_intervals: The number of intervals for the document depth percent. Default is 35.
+        :param document_depth_percents: The depth percentages of the document. Default is None.
+        :param document_depth_percent_interval_type: The type of interval for the document depth percent. Must be either 'linear' or 'sigmoid'. Default is 'linear'.
+        :param model_provider: The provider of the model. Must be either 'OpenAI' or 'Anthropic'. Default is 'OpenAI'.
+        :param openai_api_key: The API key for OpenAI. Default is None.
+        :param anthropic_api_key: The API key for Anthropic. Default is None.
+        :param model_name: The name of the model. Default is 'gpt-4-1106-preview'.
+        :param seconds_to_sleep_between_completions: The number of seconds to sleep between completions. Default is None.
+        :param print_ongoing_status: Whether or not to print the ongoing status. Default is True.
+        :param exp_name: Name of the exp. This will be used to save files. Default is True.
+        :param needle_lg: Needle language. This will be used to determine the rouge_scorer
+        """
+
+        if not needle or not haystack_dir or not retrieval_question:
+            raise ValueError("Needle, haystack, and retrieval_question must be provided.")
+        if not exp_name or not needle_lg:
+            raise ValueError("exp_name and needle_lg must be provided")
+
+        self.wandb_run = wandb.init(name=exp_name)
+
+        needles_and_stacks = [json.loads(l) for l in open(f"{haystack_dir}/needles.jsonl")]
+        self.needle_list = [l["needle"] for l in needles_and_stacks]
+        self.haystack_dir_list = [f"{haystack_dir}/part{i}" for i in range(1, 4)]
+        self.retrieval_question_list = [l["question"] for l in needles_and_stacks]
+        self.real_ansers_list = [l["real_needle"] for l in needles_and_stacks]
+        self.results_version = results_version
+        self.num_concurrent_requests = num_concurrent_requests
+        self.save_results = save_results
+        self.final_context_length_buffer = final_context_length_buffer
+        self.save_contexts = save_contexts
+        self.seconds_to_sleep_between_completions = seconds_to_sleep_between_completions
+        self.print_ongoing_status = print_ongoing_status
+        self.model_provider = model_provider
+        self.testing_results = []
+        self.head_counter = defaultdict(list)
+        self.exp_name = exp_name
+        self.needle_lg = needle_lg
+        if("/" in model_name):
+            self.model_version = model_name.split("/")[-1]
+        else: self.model_version = model_name
+        if(model_name_suffix is not None): self.model_version += "_" + model_name_suffix
+
+        if context_lengths is None:
+            if context_lengths_min is None or context_lengths_max is None or context_lengths_num_intervals is None:
+                raise ValueError("Either context_lengths_min, context_lengths_max, context_lengths_intervals need to be filled out OR the context_lengths_list needs to be supplied.")
+            else:
+                self.context_lengths = np.round(np.linspace(context_lengths_min, context_lengths_max, num=context_lengths_num_intervals, endpoint=True)).astype(int)
+        else:
+            self.context_lengths = context_lengths
+
+        if document_depth_percents is None:
+            if document_depth_percent_min is None or document_depth_percent_max is None or document_depth_percent_intervals is None:
+                raise ValueError("Either document_depth_percent_min, document_depth_percent_max, document_depth_percent_intervals need to be filled out OR the document_depth_percents needs to be supplied.")
+            else:
+                if document_depth_percent_interval_type == 'linear':
+                    self.document_depth_percents = np.round(np.linspace(document_depth_percent_min, document_depth_percent_max, num=document_depth_percent_intervals, endpoint=True)).astype(int)
+                elif document_depth_percent_interval_type == 'sigmoid':
+                    self.document_depth_percents = [self.logistic(x) for x in np.linspace(document_depth_percent_min, document_depth_percent_max, document_depth_percent_intervals)]
+        else:
+            self.document_depth_percents = document_depth_percents
+
+        if document_depth_percent_interval_type not in [None, "linear", "sigmoid"]:
+            raise ValueError("document_depth_percent_interval_type must be either None, 'linear' or 'sigmoid'. If you'd like your own distribution give a list of ints in via document_depth_percent_intervals")
+        
+        self.model_name = model_name
+
+        self.enc = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_name, use_fast=False)
+        print("loading from %s" % model_name)
+        config = AutoConfig.from_pretrained(model_name)
+        self.layer_num, self.head_num = config.num_hidden_layers, config.num_attention_heads
+        print(f"layer number: {self.layer_num}, head number {self.head_num}")
+        if "Qwen" in self.model_version:
+            self.model_to_test = Qwen2ForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
+                    model_name,torch_dtype="auto",device_map='balanced',use_flash_attention_2="flash_attention_2"
+                ).eval()
+        elif "Mixtral" in self.model_version:
+            self.model_to_test = MixtralForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
+                    model_name,torch_dtype="auto",device_map='balanced',use_flash_attention_2="flash_attention_2",trust_remote_code=True,
+                ).eval()
+        elif "Mistral" in self.model_version:
+            self.model_to_test = MistralForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
+                    model_name,torch_dtype="auto",device_map='balanced',use_flash_attention_2="flash_attention_2",trust_remote_code=True,
+                ).eval()
+        elif "Phi" in self.model_version:
+            self.model_to_test = Phi3ForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
+                    model_name,torch_dtype="auto",device_map='balanced',use_flash_attention_2="flash_attention_2",trust_remote_code=True,
+                ).eval()
+        else:
+            self.model_to_test = LlamaForCausalLM.from_pretrained(model_name,
+                use_flash_attention_2="flash_attention_2", torch_dtype=torch.bfloat16,device_map='balanced').eval()
+            
+        if 'llama-2-7b-80k' in self.model_version:
+            scaling_factor = 10
+            reset_rope(self.model_to_test, model_max_train_len=81920, scaling_factor=scaling_factor)
+            
+        if "CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES" in os.environ:
+            self.multi_gpus = len(os.environ["CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES"])>1
+        else:
+            self.multi_gpus = True
+            
+        self.model_to_test_description = model_name
+        self.evaluation_model = None
+        self.debug='debug'
+        model_name = model_name.split('/')[-1]
+
+    def logistic(self, x, L=100, x0=50, k=.1):
+        if x == 0:
+            return 0
+        if x == 100:
+            return 100
+        return np.round(L / (1 + np.exp(-k * (x - x0))), 3)
+    
+    def bound_evaluate_and_log(self, *args):
+        self.evaluate_and_log(*args)
+
+    def run_test(self, args):
+        # Run through each iteration of context_lengths and depths
+        tasks = []
+         
+        for context_length in self.context_lengths:
+            if context_length < args.s_len or context_length > args.e_len: continue
+            for depth_percent in self.document_depth_percents:
+                task = self.bound_evaluate_and_log(context_length, depth_percent)
+
+    def retrieval_calculate(self, attention_maxtrix,retrieval_score, inp, step_token,topk=1):
+        for layer_idx in range(self.layer_num):
+            for head_idx in range(self.head_num):
+                values, idx = attention_maxtrix[layer_idx][0][head_idx][-1].topk(topk)
+                for v, i in zip(values, idx):
+                    if  self.needle_start <= i < self.needle_end and inp.item()==self.prompt_ids[i].item():
+                        retrieval_score[layer_idx][head_idx][0] += 1/(self.needle_end - self.needle_start)
+                        retrieval_score[layer_idx][head_idx][1] += step_token
+                        break
+    def retrieval_head_accumulate(self, retrieval_score):
+        for layer_idx in range(self.layer_num):
+            for head_idx in range(self.head_num):
+                self.head_counter[f"{layer_idx}-{head_idx}"].append(retrieval_score[layer_idx][head_idx][0])
+
+    def decode(self, q_outputs, inp, decode_len, block_list=None):
+        output, retrieval_score = [], [[[0, ''] for _ in range(self.head_num)] for _ in range(self.layer_num)]
+        past_kv = q_outputs.past_key_values
+        for step_i in range(decode_len):
+            inp = inp.view(1, 1)
+            outputs = self.model_to_test(input_ids=inp, past_key_values=past_kv, use_cache=True, output_attentions=True, attn_mode="torch" )
+            past_kv = outputs.past_key_values
+            inp = outputs.logits[0, -1].argmax()
+            step_token = self.enc.convert_ids_to_tokens(inp.item())
+            output.append(inp.item())
+            self.retrieval_calculate(outputs.attentions, retrieval_score, inp, step_token)
+            if step_token=='<0x0A>' or inp.item()==144: break
+        return output, retrieval_score 
+
+    def find_needle_idx(self, needle):
+        needle_ids = self.enc(needle, add_special_tokens=False)["input_ids"]
+        print( self.enc.decode(needle_ids, skip_special_tokens=False))
+        span_len = len(needle_ids)
+        for i in range(len(self.prompt_ids)):            
+            token_span = self.prompt_ids[i : i + span_len]
+            span_ids = set(token_span.tolist())
+            overlap = float(len(span_ids.intersection(set(needle_ids)))) / len(set(needle_ids))
+            if(overlap > 0.9):
+                return i, i + span_len
+        return -1, -1
+
+    def evaluate_and_log(self, context_length, depth_percent):
+        # Checks to see if you've already checked a length/percent/version.
+        # This helps if the program stop running and you want to restart later
+        # Go generate the required length context and place your needle statement in
+        context = self.generate_context(context_length, depth_percent)
+        question = f"Based on the content of the book, Question: {self.retrieval_question}\nAnswer:"
+        '''
+        if self.model_version=="Qwen1.5-14B-Chat":
+            context = "<|im_start|>system\nYou are a helpful assistant<|im_end|>\n<|im_start|>user\n" + context input_context = "f{context}\nquestion<|im_end|>\n<|im_start|>assistant\n
+            question += '<|im_end|>\n<|im_start|>assistant\n'
+            input_ids = self.enc(input_context , return_tensors="pt")['input_ids']
+        '''
+        if self.model_version in ["Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2", "Qwen1.5-14B-Chat"]:
+            prompt = [
+            {"role": "user", "content": f"<book>{context}</book>\nBased on the content of the book, Question: {self.retrieval_question}\nAnswer:"},
+            ]
+            input_ids = self.enc.apply_chat_template(conversation=prompt, tokenize=True,  add_generation_prompt=True, return_tensors='pt')
+        else:
+            input_context = context + question
+            input_ids = self.enc(input_context , return_tensors="pt")['input_ids']
+        
+        # Prepare your message to send to the model you're going to evaluate
+        test_start_time = time.time()
+        self.prompt_ids = input_ids[0, :]
+        if not self.multi_gpus:
+            input_ids = input_ids.to(self.model_to_test.device)
+        self.needle_start, self.needle_end = self.find_needle_idx(self.real_needle)
+        print("Needle start and end", self.needle_start, self.needle_end )
+        with torch.no_grad():
+            q_outputs = self.model_to_test(input_ids=input_ids[:,:-1], use_cache=True, return_dict=True)
+            output, retrieval_score  = self.decode(q_outputs, input_ids[:,-1], 75) # 75 -- german requires more than 50
+            response = self.enc.decode(output,skip_special_tokens=True).strip()
+
+        test_end_time = time.time()
+        test_elapsed_time = test_end_time - test_start_time
+        
+        try:
+            if self.needle_lg == 'zh':
+                score = scorer_zh.get_scores(' '.join(jieba.cut(response)), ' '.join(jieba.cut(self.real_needle)))[0]["rouge-1"]["r"]*100
+            else:
+                score = scorer.score(self.real_needle, response)['rouge1'].recall*100
+        except Exception as e:
+            print("[ERROR]", e, "response:", response)
+            score = 0
+            
+        ## if recall > 50, we determine this retrieval succeed and update the retrieval score
+        if score > 50:
+            self.retrieval_head_accumulate(retrieval_score)
+            head_score = [(i[0], np.mean(i[1])) for i in self.head_counter.items()]
+            head_score = sorted(head_score, key=lambda x:x[1], reverse=True)
+            print([[i[0]] for i in head_score][:20])
+
+        results = {
+            'model' : self.model_to_test_description,
+            'context_length' : int(context_length),
+            'depth_percent' : float(depth_percent),
+            'version' : self.results_version,
+            'needle' : self.needle,
+            'model_response' : response,
+            'score' : score,
+            'test_duration_seconds' : test_elapsed_time,
+            'test_timestamp_utc' : datetime.now(timezone.utc).strftime('%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S%z'),
+            'ni': int(self.ni)
+        }
+
+        self.wandb_run.log(results)
+
+        self.testing_results.append(results)
+
+        if self.print_ongoing_status:
+            print (f"-- Test Summary -- ")
+            print (f"Duration: {test_elapsed_time:.1f} seconds")
+            print (f"Context: {context_length} tokens")
+            print (f"Depth: {depth_percent}%")
+            print (f"Score: {score}")
+            print (f"Response: {response}\n")
+
+        context_file_location = f'{self.model_version.replace(".", "_")}_len_{context_length}_depth_{int(depth_percent*100)}_{self.ni}'
+
+        if self.save_contexts:
+            results['file_name'] : context_file_location
+
+            # Save the context to file for retesting
+            if not os.path.exists('contexts'):
+                os.makedirs('contexts')
+
+            if not os.path.exists(f'contexts/{self.exp_name}'):
+                os.makedirs(f'contexts/{self.exp_name}')
+
+            with open(f'contexts/{self.exp_name}/{context_file_location}_context.txt', 'w') as f:
+                f.write(context)
+            
+        if self.save_results:
+            # Save the context to file for retesting
+            if not os.path.exists(f'results/graph/{self.exp_name}'):
+                os.makedirs(f'results/graph/{self.exp_name}')
+            
+            # Save the result to file for retesting
+            p = f'results/graph/{self.exp_name}/{context_file_location}_results.json'
+            print("Writing at %s" % p)
+            with open(p, 'w') as f:
+                json.dump(results, f)
+
+    def result_exists(self, context_length, depth_percent):
+        """
+        Checks to see if a result has already been evaluated or not
+        """
+
+        results_dir = 'results/' + self.model_version
+        print("Searching existing results at %s" % results_dir)
+        if not os.path.exists(results_dir):
+            return False
+        for filename in os.listdir(results_dir):
+            if filename.endswith('.json'):
+                with open(os.path.join(results_dir, filename), 'r') as f:
+                    result = json.load(f)
+                    context_length_met = result['context_length'] == context_length
+                    depth_percent_met = result['depth_percent'] == depth_percent
+                    version_met = result.get('version', 1) == self.results_version
+                    model_met = result['model'] == self.model_name
+                    # import ipdb; ipdb.set_trace()
+                    if context_length_met and depth_percent_met and version_met and model_met:
+                        return True
+        return False
+
+    def generate_context(self, context_length, depth_percent):
+        # Load up tiktoken so we navigate tokens more easily
+
+        # Get your Paul Graham files loaded into a string
+        context = self.read_context_files()
+
+        # Truncate the Paul Graham essays to the context length you desire
+        context = self.encode_and_trim(context, context_length)
+
+        # Insert your random statement according to your depth percent
+        context = self.insert_needle(context, depth_percent, context_length)
+
+        return context
+    
+    def encode_text_to_tokens(self, text):
+        if self.model_provider in ["OpenAI", "LLaMA", "Mistral", "GLM"]:
+            return self.enc.encode(text)
+        elif self.model_provider == "Anthropic":
+            # Assuming you have a different encoder for Anthropic
+            return self.enc.encode(text).ids
+        else:
+            raise ValueError("model_provider must be either 'OpenAI' or 'Anthropic'")
+    
+    def insert_needle(self, context, depth_percent, context_length):
+        tokens_needle = self.encode_text_to_tokens(self.needle)
+        tokens_context = self.encode_text_to_tokens(context)
+
+        # Reducing the context length by 150 buffer. This is to account for system message, the user question, and response.
+        context_length -= self.final_context_length_buffer
+
+        # If your context + needle are longer than the context length (which it will be), then reduce tokens from the context by the needle length
+        if len(tokens_context) + len(tokens_needle) > context_length:
+            tokens_context = tokens_context[:context_length - len(tokens_needle)]
+
+        if depth_percent == 100:
+            # If your depth percent is 100 (which means your needle is the last thing in the doc), throw it at the end
+            tokens_new_context = tokens_context + tokens_needle
+        else:
+            # Go get the position (in terms of tokens) to insert your needle
+            insertion_point = int(len(tokens_context) * (depth_percent / 100))
+            # import ipdb; ipdb.set_trace()
+
+            # tokens_new_context represents the tokens before the needle
+            tokens_new_context = tokens_context[:insertion_point]
+
+            # We want to make sure that we place our needle at a sentence break so we first see what token a '.' is
+            if(self.model_provider in ["LLaMA", "LongLLaMA"]): period_tokens = [29889, 869]
+            elif(self.model_provider == "Mistral"): period_tokens = [842, 28723]
+            elif(self.model_provider == "GLM"): period_tokens = [918, 30930]
+            else: period_tokens = self.encode_text_to_tokens('.')
+            
+            # Then we iteration backwards until we find the first period
+            while tokens_new_context and tokens_new_context[-1] not in period_tokens:
+                insertion_point -= 1
+                tokens_new_context = tokens_context[:insertion_point]
+
+            print("insertion at %d" % insertion_point)
+            # Once we get there, then add in your needle, and stick the rest of your context in on the other end.
+            # Now we have a needle in a haystack
+            tokens_new_context += tokens_needle + tokens_context[insertion_point:]
+
+        # Convert back to a string and return it
+        new_context = self.decode_tokens(tokens_new_context)
+        return new_context
+
+    def get_context_length_in_tokens(self, context):
+        print( self.model_provider )
+        if self.model_provider in ["OpenAI", "LLaMA", "Mistral", "GLM"]:
+            return len(self.enc.encode(context))
+        elif self.model_provider == "Anthropic":
+            # Assuming you have a different encoder for Anthropic
+            encoded = self.enc.encode(context)
+            return len(self.enc.encode(context).ids)
+        else:
+            
+            raise ValueError("model_provider must be either 'OpenAI' or 'Anthropic'")
+
+    def read_context_files(self):
+        context = ""
+        max_context_length = max(self.context_lengths)
+
+        # For zh use encoder to get token length
+        if self.needle_lg == 'zh':
+            while self.get_context_length_in_tokens(context) < max_context_length:
+                for file in glob.glob(f"{self.haystack_dir}/*.txt"):
+                    print(file)
+                    with open(file, 'r') as f:
+                        context += f.read()
+        else:
+            while len(context.split()) < max_context_length:
+                for file in glob.glob(f"{self.haystack_dir}/*.txt"):
+                    with open(file, 'r') as f:
+                        context += f.read()
+        return context
+
+    def get_tokens_from_context(self, context):
+        if self.model_provider in ["OpenAI", "LLaMA", "Mistral", "GLM"]:
+            return self.enc.encode(context)
+        elif self.model_provider == "Anthropic":
+            # Assuming you have a different encoder for Anthropic
+            return self.enc.encode(context).ids
+        else:
+            raise ValueError("model_provider must be either 'OpenAI' or 'Anthropic'")
+        
+    def decode_tokens(self, tokens, context_length=None):
+        if self.model_provider in ["OpenAI", "LLaMA", "Mistral", "GLM"]:
+            return self.enc.decode(tokens[:context_length])
+        elif self.model_provider == "Anthropic":
+            # Assuming you have a different decoder for Anthropic
+            return self.enc.decode(tokens[:context_length])
+        else:
+            raise ValueError("model_provider must be either 'OpenAI' or 'Anthropic'")
+
+    def encode_and_trim(self, context, context_length):
+        tokens = self.get_tokens_from_context(context)
+        if len(tokens) > context_length:
+            context = self.decode_tokens(tokens, context_length)
+        return context
+    
+    def get_results(self):
+        return self.testing_results
+    
+    def print_start_test_summary(self):
+        print ("\n")
+        print ("Starting Needle In A Haystack Testing...")
+        print (f"- Model: {self.model_name}")
+        print (f"- Context Lengths: {len(self.context_lengths)}, Min: {min(self.context_lengths)}, Max: {max(self.context_lengths)}")
+        print (f"- Document Depths: {len(self.document_depth_percents)}, Min: {min(self.document_depth_percents)}%, Max: {max(self.document_depth_percents)}%")
+        print (f"- Needle: {self.needle.strip()}")
+        print ("\n\n")
+
+    def wandb_plot(self):
+        with open(f"head_score/{self.exp_name}.json", 'r') as f:
+            head_list = json.load( f )
+            head_score_list = [([int(ll) for ll in l[0].split("-")],np.mean(l[1])) for l in head_list.items()]
+            head_score_list = sorted(head_score_list, key=lambda x: x[1], reverse=True)
+            top_retrieval_heads = [[l[0],  round(np.mean(l[1]), 2)] for l in head_score_list]
+
+            scores = [ i[1] for i in top_retrieval_heads ]
+
+        def get_color(score):
+          if score >= 0.5:
+              return '#FF4C4C'  # red
+          elif score >= 0.1:
+              return '#FFA07A'  # light coral / salmon
+          elif score > 0.0:
+              return '#4682B4'  # steel blue
+          else:
+              return '#ADD8E6'  # light blue
+
+        color_grouped_scores = defaultdict(float)
+        for score in scores:
+          color_grouped_scores[get_color(score)] += 1
+
+        sorted_groups = sorted(color_grouped_scores.items(), key=lambda x: x[1], reverse=True)
+
+        grouped_scores = [v for _, v in sorted_groups]
+        grouped_colors = [c for c, _ in sorted_groups]
+
+        color_meanings = {
+          '#FF4C4C': '≥ 0.5',
+          '#FFA07A': '0.1 – 0.5',
+          '#4682B4': '0.0 – 0.1',
+          '#ADD8E6': '0'
+        }
+
+        legend_handles = [mpatches.Patch(color=color, label=color_meanings[color]) for color in grouped_colors]
+
+        fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(16, 16))
+        wedges, texts, autotexts = ax.pie(
+          grouped_scores,
+          labels=None,  # No labels
+          autopct='%1.1f%%',
+          startangle=90,
+          colors=grouped_colors,
+          wedgeprops=dict(width=0.4)
+        )
+
+        centre_circle = plt.Circle((0, 0), 0.70, fc='white')
+        fig.gca().add_artist(centre_circle)
+        ax.axis('equal')
+        plt.title(f"Top Retrieval Head Colors {self.exp_name} {self.model_version}")
+        plt.legend(handles=legend_handles, title="Score Range", loc="upper right")
+        self.wandb_run.log({f"retrieval_head_{self.model_version}_{self.exp_name}": wandb.Image(fig)})
+        plt.close(fig)
+
+    def start_test(self, args):
+        for ni in range(len(self.needle_list)):
+            self.ni = ni # Used for storing results
+            self.needle = self.needle_list[ni]
+            self.haystack_dir = self.haystack_dir_list[ni]
+            self.real_needle  = self.real_ansers_list[ni]
+            self.retrieval_question = self.retrieval_question_list[ni]
+            if self.print_ongoing_status:
+                self.print_start_test_summary()
+            self.run_test(args)
+        if os.path.exists(f"head_score/{self.exp_name}.json"):
+            with open(f"./head_score/{self.exp_name}.json", "r") as file:
+                head_counter = json.loads(file.readline())
+            for k,v in head_counter.items():
+                self.head_counter[k] += v
+        with open(f"head_score/{self.exp_name}.json", 'w') as f:
+            json.dump(self.head_counter, f)
+
+        self.wandb_plot()
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    # Tons of defaults set, check out the LLMNeedleHaystackTester's init for more info
+    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser()
+    parser.add_argument('-s', '--s_len', metavar='N', type=int, help='a number')
+    parser.add_argument('-e', '--e_len', metavar='N', type=int, help='a number')
+    parser.add_argument('--model_path', type=str, default=None, help='path to model')
+    parser.add_argument('--model_name', type=str, default=None, help='name of model')
+    parser.add_argument('--model_name_suffix', type=str, default=None, help='name of model')
+    parser.add_argument('--model_provider', type=str, default="LLaMA", help='which model to use')
+    parser.add_argument("--haystack_dir", type=str, default="en", help="haystack dir")
+    parser.add_argument("--exp_name", type=str, default=None, help="name of the exp, this will be used to save the files")
+    parser.add_argument("--needle_lg", type=str, default=None, help="needle lang, this will be used to determine the rouge scorer")
+    args = parser.parse_args()
+   
+    model_name = args.model_path
+
+
+    ht = LLMNeedleHaystackTester(model_name=model_name, 
+                                 model_name_suffix=args.model_name_suffix,
+                                 model_provider=args.model_provider,
+                                 save_contexts=True,
+                                 save_results=True,
+                                 context_lengths_min=args.s_len,
+                                 context_lengths_max=args.e_len,
+                                 exp_name=args.exp_name,
+                                 needle_lg=args.needle_lg,
+                                 haystack_dir=args.haystack_dir
+                                 )
+
+    ht.start_test(args)

PaulGrahamEssays/addiction.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+July 2010What hard liquor, cigarettes, heroin, and crack have in common is
+that they're all more concentrated forms of less addictive predecessors.
+Most if not all the things we describe as addictive are.  And the
+scary thing is, the process that created them is accelerating.We wouldn't want to stop it.  It's the same process that cures
+diseases: technological progress.  Technological progress means
+making things do more of what we want.  When the thing we want is
+something we want to want, we consider technological progress good.
+If some new technique makes solar cells x% more efficient, that
+seems strictly better.  When progress concentrates something we
+don't want to want—when it transforms opium into heroin—it seems
+bad.  But it's the same process at work.
+[1]No one doubts this process is accelerating, which means increasing
+numbers of things we like will be transformed into things we like
+too much.
+[2]As far as I know there's no word for something we like too much.
+The closest is the colloquial sense of "addictive." That usage has
+become increasingly common during my lifetime.  And it's clear why:
+there are an increasing number of things we need it for.  At the
+extreme end of the spectrum are crack and meth.  Food has been
+transformed by a combination of factory farming and innovations in
+food processing into something with way more immediate bang for the
+buck, and you can see the results in any town in America.  Checkers
+and solitaire have been replaced by World of Warcraft and FarmVille.
+TV has become much more engaging, and even so it can't compete with Facebook.The world is more addictive than it was 40 years ago.   And unless
+the forms of technological progress that produced these things are
+subject to different laws than technological progress in general,
+the world will get more addictive in the next 40 years than it did
+in the last 40.The next 40 years will bring us some wonderful things.  I don't
+mean to imply they're all to be avoided.  Alcohol is a dangerous
+drug, but I'd rather live in a world with wine than one without.
+Most people can coexist with alcohol; but you have to be careful.
+More things we like will mean more things we have to be careful
+about.Most people won't, unfortunately.  Which means that as the world
+becomes more addictive, the two senses in which one can live a
+normal life will be driven ever further apart.  One sense of "normal"
+is statistically normal: what everyone else does.  The other is the
+sense we mean when we talk about the normal operating range of a
+piece of machinery: what works best.These two senses are already quite far apart.  Already someone
+trying to live well would seem eccentrically abstemious in most of
+the US.  That phenomenon is only going to become more pronounced.
+You can probably take it as a rule of thumb from now on that if
+people don't think you're weird, you're living badly.Societies eventually develop antibodies to addictive new things.
+I've seen that happen with cigarettes.  When cigarettes first
+appeared, they spread the way an infectious disease spreads through
+a previously isolated population.  Smoking rapidly became a
+(statistically) normal thing.  There were ashtrays everywhere.  We
+had ashtrays in our house when I was a kid, even though neither of
+my parents smoked.  You had to for guests.As knowledge spread about the dangers of smoking, customs changed.
+In the last 20 years, smoking has been transformed from something
+that seemed totally normal into a rather seedy habit: from something
+movie stars did in publicity shots to something small huddles of
+addicts do outside the doors of office buildings.  A lot of the
+change was due to legislation, of course, but the legislation
+couldn't have happened if customs hadn't already changed.It took a while though—on the order of 100 years.  And unless the
+rate at which social antibodies evolve can increase to match the
+accelerating rate at which technological progress throws off new
+addictions, we'll be increasingly unable to rely on customs to
+protect us.
+[3]
+Unless we want to be canaries in the coal mine
+of each new addiction—the people whose sad example becomes a
+lesson to future generations—we'll have to figure out for ourselves
+what to avoid and how.  It will actually become a reasonable strategy
+(or a more reasonable strategy) to suspect 
+everything new.In fact, even that won't be enough.  We'll have to worry not just
+about new things, but also about existing things becoming more
+addictive.  That's what bit me.  I've avoided most addictions, but
+the Internet got me because it became addictive while I was using
+it.
+[4]Most people I know have problems with Internet addiction.  We're
+all trying to figure out our own customs for getting free of it.
+That's why I don't have an iPhone, for example; the last thing I
+want is for the Internet to follow me out into the world.
+[5]
+My latest trick is taking long hikes.  I used to think running was a
+better form of exercise than hiking because it took less time.  Now
+the slowness of hiking seems an advantage, because the longer I
+spend on the trail, the longer I have to think without interruption.Sounds pretty eccentric, doesn't it?  It always will when you're
+trying to solve problems where there are no customs yet to guide
+you.  Maybe I can't plead Occam's razor; maybe I'm simply eccentric.
+But if I'm right about the acceleration of addictiveness, then this
+kind of lonely squirming to avoid it will increasingly be the fate
+of anyone who wants to get things done.  We'll increasingly be
+defined by what we say no to.
+Notes[1]
+Could you restrict technological progress to areas where you
+wanted it?  Only in a limited way, without becoming a police state.
+And even then your restrictions would have undesirable side effects.
+"Good" and "bad" technological progress aren't sharply differentiated,
+so you'd find you couldn't slow the latter without also slowing the
+former.  And in any case, as Prohibition and the "war on drugs"
+show, bans often do more harm than good.[2]
+Technology has always been accelerating.  By Paleolithic
+standards, technology evolved at a blistering pace in the Neolithic
+period.[3]
+Unless we mass produce social customs.  I suspect the recent
+resurgence of evangelical Christianity in the US is partly a reaction
+to drugs.  In desperation people reach for the sledgehammer; if
+their kids won't listen to them, maybe they'll listen to God.  But
+that solution has broader consequences than just getting kids to
+say no to drugs.  You end up saying no to 
+science as well.
+I worry we may be heading for a future in which only a few people
+plot their own itinerary through no-land, while everyone else books
+a package tour.  Or worse still, has one booked for them by the
+government.[4]
+People commonly use the word "procrastination" to describe
+what they do on the Internet.  It seems to me too mild to describe
+what's happening as merely not-doing-work.  We don't call it
+procrastination when someone gets drunk instead of working.[5]
+Several people have told me they like the iPad because it
+lets them bring the Internet into situations where a laptop would
+be too conspicuous.  In other words, it's a hip flask.  (This is
+true of the iPhone too, of course, but this advantage isn't as
+obvious because it reads as a phone, and everyone's used to those.)Thanks to Sam Altman, Patrick Collison, Jessica Livingston, and
+Robert Morris for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/aord.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+October 2015When I talk to a startup that's been operating for more than 8 or
+9 months, the first thing I want to know is almost always the same.
+Assuming their expenses remain constant and their revenue growth
+is what it has been over the last several months, do they make it to
+profitability on the money they have left?  Or to put it more
+dramatically, by default do they live or die?The startling thing is how often the founders themselves don't know.
+Half the founders I talk to don't know whether they're default alive
+or default dead.If you're among that number, Trevor Blackwell has made a handy
+calculator you can use to find out.The reason I want to know first whether a startup is default alive
+or default dead is that the rest of the conversation depends on the
+answer.  If the company is default alive, we can talk about ambitious
+new things they could do.  If it's default dead, we probably need
+to talk about how to save it.  We know the current trajectory ends
+badly.  How can they get off that trajectory?Why do so few founders know whether they're default alive or default
+dead?  Mainly, I think, because they're not used to asking that.
+It's not a question that makes sense to ask early on, any more than
+it makes sense to ask a 3 year old how he plans to support
+himself.  But as the company grows older, the question switches from
+meaningless to critical.  That kind of switch often takes people
+by surprise.I propose the following solution: instead of starting to ask too
+late whether you're default alive or default dead, start asking too
+early.  It's hard to say precisely when the question switches
+polarity.  But it's probably not that dangerous to start worrying
+too early that you're default dead, whereas it's very dangerous to
+start worrying too late.The reason is a phenomenon I wrote about earlier: the
+fatal pinch.
+The fatal pinch is default dead + slow growth + not enough
+time to fix it.  And the way founders end up in it is by not realizing
+that's where they're headed.There is another reason founders don't ask themselves whether they're
+default alive or default dead: they assume it will be easy to raise
+more money.  But that assumption is often false, and worse still, the
+more you depend on it, the falser it becomes.Maybe it will help to separate facts from hopes. Instead of thinking
+of the future with vague optimism, explicitly separate the components.
+Say "We're default dead, but we're counting on investors to save
+us." Maybe as you say that, it will set off the same alarms in your
+head that it does in mine.  And if you set off the alarms sufficiently
+early, you may be able to avoid the fatal pinch.It would be safe to be default dead if you could count on investors
+saving you.  As a rule their interest is a function of
+growth.  If you have steep revenue growth, say over 5x a year, you
+can start to count on investors being interested even if you're not
+profitable.
+[1]
+But investors are so fickle that you can never
+do more than start to count on them.  Sometimes something about your
+business will spook investors even if your growth is great.  So no
+matter how good your growth is, you can never safely treat fundraising
+as more than a plan A. You should always have a plan B as well: you
+should know (as in write down) precisely what you'll need to do to
+survive if you can't raise more money, and precisely when you'll 
+have to switch to plan B if plan A isn't working.In any case, growing fast versus operating cheaply is far from the
+sharp dichotomy many founders assume it to be.  In practice there
+is surprisingly little connection between how much a startup spends
+and how fast it grows.  When a startup grows fast, it's usually
+because the product hits a nerve, in the sense of hitting some big
+need straight on.  When a startup spends a lot, it's usually because
+the product is expensive to develop or sell, or simply because
+they're wasteful.If you're paying attention, you'll be asking at this point not just
+how to avoid the fatal pinch, but how to avoid being default dead.
+That one is easy: don't hire too fast.  Hiring too fast is by far
+the biggest killer of startups that raise money.
+[2]Founders tell themselves they need to hire in order to grow.  But
+most err on the side of overestimating this need rather than
+underestimating it.  Why?  Partly because there's so much work to
+do.  Naive founders think that if they can just hire enough
+people, it will all get done.  Partly because successful startups have
+lots of employees, so it seems like that's what one does in order
+to be successful.  In fact the large staffs of successful startups
+are probably more the effect of growth than the cause.  And
+partly because when founders have slow growth they don't want to
+face what is usually the real reason: the product is not appealing
+enough.Plus founders who've just raised money are often encouraged to
+overhire by the VCs who funded them.  Kill-or-cure strategies are
+optimal for VCs because they're protected by the portfolio effect.
+VCs want to blow you up, in one sense of the phrase or the other.
+But as a founder your incentives are different.  You want above all
+to survive.
+[3]Here's a common way startups die.  They make something moderately
+appealing and have decent initial growth. They raise their first
+round fairly easily, because the founders seem smart and the idea
+sounds plausible. But because the product is only moderately
+appealing, growth is ok but not great.  The founders convince
+themselves that hiring a bunch of people is the way to boost growth.
+Their investors agree.  But (because the product is only moderately
+appealing) the growth never comes.  Now they're rapidly running out
+of runway.  They hope further investment will save them. But because
+they have high expenses and slow growth, they're now unappealing
+to investors. They're unable to raise more, and the company dies.What the company should have done is address the fundamental problem:
+that the product is only moderately appealing.  Hiring people is
+rarely the way to fix that.  More often than not it makes it harder.
+At this early stage, the product needs to evolve more than to be
+"built out," and that's usually easier with fewer people.
+[4]Asking whether you're default alive or default dead may save you
+from this.  Maybe the alarm bells it sets off will counteract the
+forces that push you to overhire.  Instead you'll be compelled to
+seek growth in other ways. For example, by doing
+things that don't scale, or by redesigning the product in the
+way only founders can.
+And for many if not most startups, these paths to growth will be
+the ones that actually work.Airbnb waited 4 months after raising money at the end of Y Combinator
+before they hired their first employee.  In the meantime the founders
+were terribly overworked.  But they were overworked evolving Airbnb
+into the astonishingly successful organism it is now.Notes[1]
+Steep usage growth will also interest investors.  Revenue
+will ultimately be a constant multiple of usage, so x% usage growth
+predicts x% revenue growth.  But in practice investors discount
+merely predicted revenue, so if you're measuring usage you need a
+higher growth rate to impress investors.[2]
+Startups that don't raise money are saved from hiring too
+fast because they can't afford to. But that doesn't mean you should
+avoid raising money in order to avoid this problem, any more than
+that total abstinence is the only way to avoid becoming an alcoholic.[3]
+I would not be surprised if VCs' tendency to push founders
+to overhire is not even in their own interest.  They don't know how
+many of the companies that get killed by overspending might have
+done well if they'd survived.  My guess is a significant number.[4]
+After reading a draft, Sam Altman wrote:"I think you should make the hiring point more strongly.  I think
+it's roughly correct to say that YC's most successful companies
+have never been the fastest to hire, and one of the marks of a great
+founder is being able to resist this urge."Paul Buchheit adds:"A related problem that I see a lot is premature scaling—founders
+take a small business that isn't really working (bad unit economics,
+typically) and then scale it up because they want impressive growth
+numbers. This is similar to over-hiring in that it makes the business
+much harder to fix once it's big, plus they are bleeding cash really
+fast."
+Thanks to Sam Altman, Paul Buchheit, Joe Gebbia, Jessica Livingston,
+and Geoff Ralston for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/apple.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+
+
+Want to start a startup?  Get funded by
+Y Combinator.
+
+
+
+
+November 2009I don't think Apple realizes how badly the App Store approval process
+is broken.  Or rather, I don't think they realize how much it matters
+that it's broken.The way Apple runs the App Store has harmed their reputation with
+programmers more than anything else they've ever done. 
+Their reputation with programmers used to be great.
+It used to be the most common complaint you heard
+about Apple was that their fans admired them too uncritically.
+The App Store has changed that.  Now a lot of programmers
+have started to see Apple as evil.How much of the goodwill Apple once had with programmers have they
+lost over the App Store?  A third?  Half?  And that's just so far.
+The App Store is an ongoing karma leak.* * *How did Apple get into this mess?  Their fundamental problem is
+that they don't understand software.They treat iPhone apps the way they treat the music they sell through
+iTunes.  Apple is the channel; they own the user; if you want to
+reach users, you do it on their terms. The record labels agreed,
+reluctantly.  But this model doesn't work for software.  It doesn't
+work for an intermediary to own the user.  The software business
+learned that in the early 1980s, when companies like VisiCorp showed
+that although the words "software" and "publisher" fit together,
+the underlying concepts don't.  Software isn't like music or books.
+It's too complicated for a third party to act as an intermediary
+between developer and user.   And yet that's what Apple is trying
+to be with the App Store: a software publisher.  And a particularly
+overreaching one at that, with fussy tastes and a rigidly enforced
+house style.If software publishing didn't work in 1980, it works even less now
+that software development has evolved from a small number of big
+releases to a constant stream of small ones.  But Apple doesn't
+understand that either.  Their model of product development derives
+from hardware.  They work on something till they think it's finished,
+then they release it.  You have to do that with hardware, but because
+software is so easy to change, its design can benefit from evolution.
+The standard way to develop applications now is to launch fast and
+iterate.  Which means it's a disaster to have long, random delays
+each time you release a new version.Apparently Apple's attitude is that developers should be more careful
+when they submit a new version to the App Store.  They would say
+that.  But powerful as they are, they're not powerful enough to
+turn back the evolution of technology.  Programmers don't use
+launch-fast-and-iterate out of laziness.  They use it because it
+yields the best results.  By obstructing that process, Apple is
+making them do bad work, and programmers hate that as much as Apple
+would.How would Apple like it if when they discovered a serious bug in
+OS X, instead of releasing a software update immediately, they had
+to submit their code to an intermediary who sat on it for a month
+and then rejected it because it contained an icon they didn't like?By breaking software development, Apple gets the opposite of what
+they intended: the version of an app currently available in the App
+Store tends to be an old and buggy one.  One developer told me:
+
+  As a result of their process, the App Store is full of half-baked
+  applications. I make a new version almost every day that I release
+  to beta users. The version on the App Store feels old and crappy.
+  I'm sure that a lot of developers feel this way: One emotion is
+  "I'm not really proud about what's in the App Store", and it's
+  combined with the emotion "Really, it's Apple's fault."
+
+Another wrote:
+
+  I believe that they think their approval process helps users by
+  ensuring quality.  In reality, bugs like ours get through all the
+  time and then it can take 4-8 weeks to get that bug fix approved,
+  leaving users to think that iPhone apps sometimes just don't work.
+  Worse for Apple, these apps work just fine on other platforms
+  that have immediate approval processes.
+
+Actually I suppose Apple has a third misconception: that all the
+complaints about App Store approvals are not a serious problem.
+They must hear developers complaining.  But partners and suppliers
+are always complaining.  It would be a bad sign if they weren't;
+it would mean you were being too easy on them.  Meanwhile the iPhone
+is selling better than ever.  So why do they need to fix anything?They get away with maltreating developers, in the short term, because
+they make such great hardware.  I just bought a new 27" iMac a
+couple days ago.  It's fabulous.  The screen's too shiny, and the
+disk is surprisingly loud, but it's so beautiful that you can't
+make yourself care.So I bought it, but I bought it, for the first time, with misgivings.
+I felt the way I'd feel buying something made in a country with a
+bad human rights record.  That was new.  In the past when I bought
+things from Apple it was an unalloyed pleasure.  Oh boy!  They make
+such great stuff.  This time it felt like a Faustian bargain.  They
+make such great stuff, but they're such assholes.  Do I really want
+to support this company?* * *Should Apple care what people like me think?  What difference does
+it make if they alienate a small minority of their users?There are a couple reasons they should care.  One is that these
+users are the people they want as employees.  If your company seems
+evil, the best programmers won't work for you.  That hurt Microsoft
+a lot starting in the 90s.  Programmers started to feel sheepish
+about working there.  It seemed like selling out.  When people from
+Microsoft were talking to other programmers and they mentioned where
+they worked, there were a lot of self-deprecating jokes about having
+gone over to the dark side.  But the real problem for Microsoft
+wasn't the embarrassment of the people they hired.  It was the
+people they never got.  And you know who got them?  Google and
+Apple.  If Microsoft was the Empire, they were the Rebel Alliance.
+And it's largely because they got more of the best people that
+Google and Apple are doing so much better than Microsoft today.Why are programmers so fussy about their employers' morals?  Partly
+because they can afford to be.  The best programmers can work
+wherever they want.  They don't have to work for a company they
+have qualms about.But the other reason programmers are fussy, I think, is that evil
+begets stupidity.  An organization that wins by exercising power
+starts to lose the ability to win by doing better work.  And it's
+not fun for a smart person to work in a place where the best ideas
+aren't the ones that win.  I think the reason Google embraced "Don't
+be evil" so eagerly was not so much to impress the outside world
+as to inoculate themselves against arrogance.
+[1]That has worked for Google so far.  They've become more
+bureaucratic, but otherwise they seem to have held true to their
+original principles. With Apple that seems less the case.  When you
+look at the famous 
+1984 ad 
+now, it's easier to imagine Apple as the
+dictator on the screen than the woman with the hammer.
+[2]
+In fact, if you read the dictator's speech it sounds uncannily like a
+prophecy of the App Store.
+
+  We have triumphed over the unprincipled dissemination of facts.We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of
+  pure ideology, where each worker may bloom secure from the pests
+  of contradictory and confusing truths.
+
+The other reason Apple should care what programmers think of them
+is that when you sell a platform, developers make or break you.  If
+anyone should know this, Apple should.  VisiCalc made the Apple II.And programmers build applications for the platforms they use.  Most
+applications—most startups, probably—grow out of personal projects.
+Apple itself did.  Apple made microcomputers because that's what
+Steve Wozniak wanted for himself.  He couldn't have afforded a
+minicomputer. 
+[3]
+ Microsoft likewise started out making interpreters
+for little microcomputers because
+Bill Gates and Paul Allen were interested in using them.  It's a
+rare startup that doesn't build something the founders use.The main reason there are so many iPhone apps is that so many programmers
+have iPhones.  They may know, because they read it in an article,
+that Blackberry has such and such market share.  But in practice
+it's as if RIM didn't exist. If they're going to build something,
+they want to be able to use it themselves, and that means building
+an iPhone app.So programmers continue to develop iPhone apps, even though Apple
+continues to maltreat them.  They're like someone stuck in an abusive
+relationship.  They're so attracted to the iPhone that they can't
+leave.  But they're looking for a way out.  One wrote:
+
+  While I did enjoy developing for the iPhone, the control they
+  place on the App Store does not give me the drive to develop
+  applications as I would like. In fact I don't intend to make any
+  more iPhone applications unless absolutely necessary.
+[4]
+
+Can anything break this cycle?  No device I've seen so far could.
+Palm and RIM haven't a hope.  The only credible contender is Android.
+But Android is an orphan; Google doesn't really care about it, not
+the way Apple cares about the iPhone.  Apple cares about the iPhone
+the way Google cares about search.* * *Is the future of handheld devices one locked down by Apple?  It's
+a worrying prospect.  It would be a bummer to have another grim
+monoculture like we had in the 1990s.  In 1995, writing software
+for end users was effectively identical with writing Windows
+applications.  Our horror at that prospect was the single biggest
+thing that drove us to start building web apps.At least we know now what it would take to break Apple's lock.
+You'd have to get iPhones out of programmers' hands.  If programmers
+used some other device for mobile web access, they'd start to develop
+apps for that instead.How could you make a device programmers liked better than the iPhone?
+It's unlikely you could make something better designed.  Apple
+leaves no room there.  So this alternative device probably couldn't
+win on general appeal.  It would have to win by virtue of some
+appeal it had to programmers specifically.One way to appeal to programmers is with software.  If you
+could think of an application programmers had to have, but that
+would be impossible in the circumscribed world of the iPhone, 
+you could presumably get them to switch.That would definitely happen if programmers started to use handhelds
+as development machines—if handhelds displaced laptops the
+way laptops displaced desktops.  You need more control of a development
+machine than Apple will let you have over an iPhone.Could anyone make a device that you'd carry around in your pocket
+like a phone, and yet would also work as a development machine?
+It's hard to imagine what it would look like.  But I've learned
+never to say never about technology.  A phone-sized device that
+would work as a development machine is no more miraculous by present
+standards than the iPhone itself would have seemed by the standards
+of 1995.My current development machine is a MacBook Air, which I use with
+an external monitor and keyboard in my office, and by itself when
+traveling.  If there was a version half the size I'd prefer it.
+That still wouldn't be small enough to carry around everywhere like
+a phone, but we're within a factor of 4 or so.  Surely that gap is
+bridgeable.  In fact, let's make it an
+RFS. Wanted: 
+Woman with hammer.Notes[1]
+When Google adopted "Don't be evil," they were still so small
+that no one would have expected them to be, yet.
+[2]
+The dictator in the 1984 ad isn't Microsoft, incidentally;
+it's IBM.  IBM seemed a lot more frightening in those days, but
+they were friendlier to developers than Apple is now.[3]
+He couldn't even afford a monitor.  That's why the Apple
+I used a TV as a monitor.[4]
+Several people I talked to mentioned how much they liked the
+iPhone SDK.  The problem is not Apple's products but their policies.
+Fortunately policies are software; Apple can change them instantly
+if they want to.  Handy that, isn't it?Thanks to Sam Altman, Trevor Blackwell, Ross Boucher, 
+James Bracy, Gabor Cselle,
+Patrick Collison, Jason Freedman, John Gruber, Joe Hewitt, Jessica Livingston,
+Robert Morris, Teng Siong Ong, Nikhil Pandit, Savraj Singh, and Jared Tame for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/avg.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,375 @@
+
+
+Want to start a startup?  Get funded by
+Y Combinator.
+
+
+
+
+April 2001, rev. April 2003(This article is derived from a talk given at the 2001 Franz
+Developer Symposium.)
+In the summer of 1995, my friend Robert Morris and I
+started a startup called 
+Viaweb.  
+Our plan was to write
+software that would let end users build online stores.
+What was novel about this software, at the time, was
+that it ran on our server, using ordinary Web pages
+as the interface.A lot of people could have been having this idea at the
+same time, of course, but as far as I know, Viaweb was
+the first Web-based application.  It seemed such
+a novel idea to us that we named the company after it:
+Viaweb, because our software worked via the Web,
+instead of running on your desktop computer.Another unusual thing about this software was that it
+was written primarily in a programming language called
+Lisp. It was one of the first big end-user
+applications to be written in Lisp, which up till then
+had been used mostly in universities and research labs. [1]The Secret WeaponEric Raymond has written an essay called "How to Become a Hacker,"
+and in it, among other things, he tells would-be hackers what
+languages they should learn.  He suggests starting with Python and
+Java, because they are easy to learn.  The serious hacker will also
+want to learn C, in order to hack Unix, and Perl for system
+administration and cgi scripts.  Finally, the truly serious hacker
+should consider learning Lisp:
+
+  Lisp is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience
+  you will have when you finally get it; that experience will make
+  you a better programmer for the rest of your days, even if you
+  never actually use Lisp itself a lot.
+
+This is the same argument you tend to hear for learning Latin.  It
+won't get you a job, except perhaps as a classics professor, but
+it will improve your mind, and make you a better writer in languages
+you do want to use, like English.But wait a minute.  This metaphor doesn't stretch that far.  The
+reason Latin won't get you a job is that no one speaks it.  If you
+write in Latin, no one can understand you.  But Lisp is a computer
+language, and computers speak whatever language you, the programmer,
+tell them to.So if Lisp makes you a better programmer, like he says, why wouldn't
+you want to use it? If a painter were offered a brush that would
+make him a better painter, it seems to me that he would want to
+use it in all his paintings, wouldn't he? I'm not trying to make
+fun of Eric Raymond here.  On the whole, his advice is good.  What
+he says about Lisp is pretty much the conventional wisdom.  But
+there is a contradiction in the conventional wisdom:  Lisp will
+make you a better programmer, and yet you won't use it.Why not?  Programming languages are just tools, after all.  If Lisp
+really does yield better programs, you should use it.  And if it
+doesn't, then who needs it?This is not just a theoretical question.  Software is a very
+competitive business, prone to natural monopolies.  A company that
+gets software written faster and better will, all other things
+being equal, put its competitors out of business.  And when you're
+starting a startup, you feel this very keenly.  Startups tend to
+be an all or nothing proposition.  You either get rich, or you get
+nothing.  In a startup, if you bet on the wrong technology, your
+competitors will crush you.Robert and I both knew Lisp well, and we couldn't see any reason
+not to trust our instincts and go with Lisp.  We knew that everyone
+else was writing their software in C++ or Perl.  But we also knew
+that that didn't mean anything.  If you chose technology that way,
+you'd be running Windows.  When you choose technology, you have to
+ignore what other people are doing, and consider only what will
+work the best.This is especially true in a startup.  In a big company, you can
+do what all the other big companies are doing.  But a startup can't
+do what all the other startups do.  I don't think a lot of people
+realize this, even in startups.The average big company grows at about ten percent a year.  So if
+you're running a big company and you do everything the way the
+average big company does it, you can expect to do as well as the
+average big company-- that is, to grow about ten percent a year.The same thing will happen if you're running a startup, of course.
+If you do everything the way the average startup does it, you should
+expect average performance.  The problem here is, average performance
+means that you'll go out of business.  The survival rate for startups
+is way less than fifty percent.  So if you're running a startup,
+you had better be doing something odd.  If not, you're in trouble.Back in 1995, we knew something that I don't think our competitors
+understood, and few understand even now:  when you're writing
+software that only has to run on your own servers, you can use
+any language you want.  When you're writing desktop software,
+there's a strong bias toward writing applications in the same
+language as the operating system.  Ten years ago, writing applications
+meant writing applications in C.  But with Web-based software,
+especially when you have the source code of both the language and
+the operating system, you can use whatever language you want.This new freedom is a double-edged sword, however.  Now that you
+can use any language, you have to think about which one to use.
+Companies that try to pretend nothing has changed risk finding that
+their competitors do not.If you can use any language, which do you use?  We chose Lisp.
+For one thing, it was obvious that rapid development would be
+important in this market.  We were all starting from scratch, so
+a company that could get new features done before its competitors
+would have a big advantage.  We knew Lisp was a really good language
+for writing software quickly, and server-based applications magnify
+the effect of rapid development, because you can release software
+the minute it's done.If other companies didn't want to use Lisp, so much the better.
+It might give us a technological edge, and we needed all the help
+we could get.  When we started Viaweb, we had no experience in
+business.  We didn't know anything about marketing, or hiring
+people, or raising money, or getting customers.  Neither of us had
+ever even had what you would call a real job.  The only thing we
+were good at was writing software.  We hoped that would save us.
+Any advantage we could get in the software department, we would
+take.So you could say that using Lisp was an experiment.  Our hypothesis
+was that if we wrote our software in Lisp, we'd be able to get
+features done faster than our competitors, and also to do things
+in our software that they couldn't do.  And because Lisp was so
+high-level, we wouldn't need a big development team, so our costs
+would be lower.  If this were so, we could offer a better product
+for less money, and still make a profit.  We would end up getting
+all the users, and our competitors would get none, and eventually
+go out of business.  That was what we hoped would happen, anyway.What were the results of this experiment?  Somewhat surprisingly,
+it worked.  We eventually had many competitors, on the order of
+twenty to thirty of them, but none of their software could compete
+with ours.  We had a wysiwyg online store builder that ran on the
+server and yet felt like a desktop application.  Our competitors
+had cgi scripts.  And we were always far ahead of them in features.
+Sometimes, in desperation, competitors would try to introduce
+features that we didn't have.  But with Lisp our development cycle
+was so fast that we could sometimes duplicate a new feature within
+a day or two of a competitor announcing it in a press release.  By
+the time journalists covering the press release got round to calling
+us, we would have the new feature too.It must have seemed to our competitors that we had some kind of
+secret weapon-- that we were decoding their Enigma traffic or
+something.  In fact we did have a secret weapon, but it was simpler
+than they realized.  No one was leaking news of their features to
+us.   We were just able to develop software faster than anyone
+thought possible.When I was about nine I happened to get hold of a copy of The Day
+of the Jackal, by Frederick Forsyth.  The main character is an
+assassin who is hired to kill the president of France.  The assassin
+has to get past the police to get up to an apartment that overlooks
+the president's route.  He walks right by them, dressed up as an
+old man on crutches, and they never suspect him.Our secret weapon was similar.  We wrote our software in a weird
+AI language, with a bizarre syntax full of parentheses.  For years
+it had annoyed me to hear Lisp described that way.  But now it
+worked to our advantage.  In business, there is nothing more valuable
+than a technical advantage your competitors don't understand.  In
+business, as in war, surprise is worth as much as force.And so, I'm a little embarrassed to say, I never said anything
+publicly about Lisp while we were working on Viaweb.  We never
+mentioned it to the press, and if you searched for Lisp on our Web
+site, all you'd find were the titles of two books in my bio.  This
+was no accident.  A startup should give its competitors as little
+information as possible.  If they didn't know what language our
+software was written in, or didn't care, I wanted to keep it that
+way.[2]The people who understood our technology best were the customers.
+They didn't care what language Viaweb was written in either, but
+they noticed that it worked really well.  It let them build great
+looking online stores literally in minutes.  And so, by word of
+mouth mostly, we got more and more users.  By the end of 1996 we
+had about 70 stores online.  At the end of 1997 we had 500.  Six
+months later, when Yahoo bought us, we had 1070 users.  Today, as
+Yahoo Store, this software continues to dominate its market.  It's
+one of the more profitable pieces of Yahoo, and the stores built
+with it are the foundation of Yahoo Shopping.  I left Yahoo in
+1999, so I don't know exactly how many users they have now, but
+the last I heard there were about 20,000.
+The Blub ParadoxWhat's so great about Lisp?  And if Lisp is so great, why doesn't
+everyone use it?  These sound like rhetorical questions, but actually
+they have straightforward answers.  Lisp is so great not because
+of some magic quality visible only to devotees, but because it is
+simply the most powerful language available.  And the reason everyone
+doesn't use it is that programming languages are not merely
+technologies, but habits of mind as well, and nothing changes
+slower.  Of course, both these answers need explaining.I'll begin with a shockingly controversial statement:  programming
+languages vary in power.Few would dispute, at least, that high level languages are more
+powerful than machine language.  Most programmers today would agree
+that you do not, ordinarily, want to program in machine language.
+Instead, you should program in a high-level language, and have a
+compiler translate it into machine language for you.  This idea is
+even built into the hardware now: since the 1980s, instruction sets
+have been designed for compilers rather than human programmers.Everyone knows it's a mistake to write your whole program by hand
+in machine language.  What's less often understood is that there
+is a more general principle here: that if you have a choice of
+several languages, it is, all other things being equal, a mistake
+to program in anything but the most powerful one. [3]There are many exceptions to this rule.  If you're writing a program
+that has to work very closely with a program written in a certain
+language, it might be a good idea to write the new program in the
+same language.  If you're writing a program that only has to do
+something very simple, like number crunching or bit manipulation,
+you may as well use a less abstract language, especially since it
+may be slightly faster.  And if you're writing a short, throwaway
+program, you may be better off just using whatever language has
+the best library functions for the task.  But in general, for
+application software, you want to be using the most powerful
+(reasonably efficient) language you can get, and using anything
+else is a mistake, of exactly the same kind, though possibly in a
+lesser degree, as programming in machine language.You can see that machine language is very low level.  But, at least
+as a kind of social convention, high-level languages are often all
+treated as equivalent.  They're not.  Technically the term "high-level
+language" doesn't mean anything very definite.  There's no dividing
+line with machine languages on one side and all the high-level
+languages on the other.  Languages fall along a continuum [4] of
+abstractness, from the most powerful all the way down to machine
+languages, which themselves vary in power.Consider Cobol.  Cobol is a high-level language, in the sense that
+it gets compiled into machine language.  Would anyone seriously
+argue that Cobol is equivalent in power to, say, Python?  It's
+probably closer to machine language than Python.Or how about Perl 4?  Between Perl 4 and Perl 5, lexical closures
+got added to the language.  Most Perl hackers would agree that Perl
+5 is more powerful than Perl 4.  But once you've admitted that,
+you've admitted that one high level language can be more powerful
+than another.  And it follows inexorably that, except in special
+cases, you ought to use the most powerful you can get.This idea is rarely followed to its conclusion, though.  After a
+certain age, programmers rarely switch languages voluntarily.
+Whatever language people happen to be used to, they tend to consider
+just good enough.Programmers get very attached to their favorite languages, and I
+don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, so to explain this point I'm
+going to use a hypothetical language called Blub.  Blub falls right
+in the middle of the abstractness continuum.  It is not the most
+powerful language, but it is more powerful than Cobol or machine
+language.And in fact, our hypothetical Blub programmer wouldn't use either
+of them.  Of course he wouldn't program in machine language.  That's
+what compilers are for.  And as for Cobol, he doesn't know how
+anyone can get anything done with it.  It doesn't even have x (Blub
+feature of your choice).As long as our hypothetical Blub programmer is looking down the
+power continuum, he knows he's looking down.  Languages less powerful
+than Blub are obviously less powerful, because they're missing some
+feature he's used to.  But when our hypothetical Blub programmer
+looks in the other direction, up the power continuum, he doesn't
+realize he's looking up.  What he sees are merely weird languages.
+He probably considers them about equivalent in power to Blub, but
+with all this other hairy stuff thrown in as well.  Blub is good
+enough for him, because he thinks in Blub.When we switch to the point of view of a programmer using any of
+the languages higher up the power continuum, however, we find that
+he in turn looks down upon Blub.  How can you get anything done in
+Blub? It doesn't even have y.By induction, the only programmers in a position to see all the
+differences in power between the various languages are those who
+understand the most powerful one.  (This is probably what Eric
+Raymond meant about Lisp making you a better programmer.) You can't
+trust the opinions of the others, because of the Blub paradox:
+they're satisfied with whatever language they happen to use, because
+it dictates the way they think about programs.I know this from my own experience, as a high school kid writing
+programs in Basic.  That language didn't even support recursion.
+It's hard to imagine writing programs without using recursion, but
+I didn't miss it at the time.  I thought in Basic.  And I was a
+whiz at it.  Master of all I surveyed.The five languages that Eric Raymond recommends to hackers fall at
+various points on the power continuum.  Where they fall relative
+to one another is a sensitive topic.  What I will say is that I
+think Lisp is at the top.  And to support this claim I'll tell you
+about one of the things I find missing when I look at the other
+four languages.  How can you get anything done in them, I think,
+without macros? [5]Many languages have something called a macro.  But Lisp macros are
+unique.  And believe it or not, what they do is related to the
+parentheses.  The designers of Lisp didn't put all those parentheses
+in the language just to be different.  To the Blub programmer, Lisp
+code looks weird.  But those parentheses are there for a reason.
+They are the outward evidence of a fundamental difference between
+Lisp and other languages.Lisp code is made out of Lisp data objects.  And not in the trivial
+sense that the source files contain characters, and strings are
+one of the data types supported by the language.  Lisp code, after
+it's read by the parser, is made of data structures that you can
+traverse.If you understand how compilers work, what's really going on is
+not so much that Lisp has a strange syntax as that Lisp has no
+syntax.  You write programs in the parse trees that get generated
+within the compiler when other languages are parsed.  But these
+parse trees are fully accessible to your programs.  You can write
+programs that manipulate them.  In Lisp, these programs are called
+macros.  They are programs that write programs.Programs that write programs?  When would you ever want to do that?
+Not very often, if you think in Cobol.  All the time, if you think
+in Lisp.  It would be convenient here if I could give an example
+of a powerful macro, and say there! how about that?  But if I did,
+it would just look like gibberish to someone who didn't know Lisp;
+there isn't room here to explain everything you'd need to know to
+understand what it meant.  In 
+Ansi Common Lisp I tried to move
+things along as fast as I could, and even so I didn't get to macros
+until page 160.But I think I can give a kind of argument that might be convincing.
+The source code of the Viaweb editor was probably about 20-25%
+macros.  Macros are harder to write than ordinary Lisp functions,
+and it's considered to be bad style to use them when they're not
+necessary.  So every macro in that code is there because it has to
+be.  What that means is that at least 20-25% of the code in this
+program is doing things that you can't easily do in any other
+language.  However skeptical the Blub programmer might be about my
+claims for the mysterious powers of Lisp, this ought to make him
+curious.  We weren't writing this code for our own amusement.  We
+were a tiny startup, programming as hard as we could in order to
+put technical barriers between us and our competitors.A suspicious person might begin to wonder if there was some
+correlation here.  A big chunk of our code was doing things that
+are very hard to do in other languages.  The resulting software
+did things our competitors' software couldn't do.  Maybe there was
+some kind of connection.  I encourage you to follow that thread.
+There may be more to that old man hobbling along on his crutches
+than meets the eye.Aikido for StartupsBut I don't expect to convince anyone 
+(over 25) 
+to go out and learn
+Lisp.  The purpose of this article is not to change anyone's mind,
+but to reassure people already interested in using Lisp-- people
+who know that Lisp is a powerful language, but worry because it
+isn't widely used.  In a competitive situation, that's an advantage.
+Lisp's power is multiplied by the fact that your competitors don't
+get it.If you think of using Lisp in a startup, you shouldn't worry that
+it isn't widely understood.  You should hope that it stays that
+way. And it's likely to.  It's the nature of programming languages
+to make most people satisfied with whatever they currently use.
+Computer hardware changes so much faster than personal habits that
+programming practice is usually ten to twenty years behind the
+processor.  At places like MIT they were writing programs in
+high-level languages in the early 1960s, but many companies continued
+to write code in machine language well into the 1980s.  I bet a
+lot of people continued to write machine language until the processor,
+like a bartender eager to close up and go home, finally kicked them
+out by switching to a risc instruction set.Ordinarily technology changes fast.  But programming languages are
+different: programming languages are not just technology, but what
+programmers think in.  They're half technology and half religion.[6]
+And so the median language, meaning whatever language the median
+programmer uses, moves as slow as an iceberg.  Garbage collection,
+introduced by Lisp in about 1960, is now widely considered to be
+a good thing.  Runtime typing, ditto, is growing in popularity.
+Lexical closures, introduced by Lisp in the early 1970s, are now,
+just barely, on the radar screen.  Macros, introduced by Lisp in the
+mid 1960s, are still terra incognita.Obviously, the median language has enormous momentum.  I'm not
+proposing that you can fight this powerful force.  What I'm proposing
+is exactly the opposite: that, like a practitioner of Aikido, you
+can use it against your opponents.If you work for a big company, this may not be easy.  You will have
+a hard time convincing the pointy-haired boss to let you build
+things in Lisp, when he has just read in the paper that some other
+language is poised, like Ada was twenty years ago, to take over
+the world.  But if you work for a startup that doesn't have
+pointy-haired bosses yet, you can, like we did, turn the Blub
+paradox to your advantage:  you can use technology that your
+competitors, glued immovably to the median language, will never be
+able to match.If you ever do find yourself working for a startup, here's a handy
+tip for evaluating competitors.  Read their job listings.  Everything
+else on their site may be stock photos or the prose equivalent,
+but the job listings have to be specific about what they want, or
+they'll get the wrong candidates.During the years we worked on Viaweb I read a lot of job descriptions.
+A new competitor seemed to emerge out of the woodwork every month
+or so.  The first thing I would do, after checking to see if they
+had a live online demo, was look at their job listings.  After a
+couple years of this I could tell which companies to worry about
+and which not to.  The more of an IT flavor the job descriptions
+had, the less dangerous the company was.  The safest kind were the
+ones that wanted Oracle experience.  You never had to worry about
+those.  You were also safe if they said they wanted C++ or Java
+developers.  If they wanted Perl or Python programmers, that would
+be a bit frightening-- that's starting to sound like a company
+where the technical side, at least, is run by real hackers.  If I
+had ever seen a job posting looking for Lisp hackers, I would have
+been really worried.
+Notes[1] Viaweb at first had two parts: the editor, written in Lisp,
+which people used to build their sites, and the ordering system,
+written in C, which handled orders.  The first version was mostly
+Lisp, because the ordering system was small.  Later we added two
+more modules, an image generator written in C, and a back-office
+manager written mostly in Perl.In January 2003, Yahoo released a new version of the editor 
+written in C++ and Perl.  It's hard to say whether the program is no
+longer written in Lisp, though, because to translate this program
+into C++ they literally had to write a Lisp interpreter: the source
+files of all the page-generating templates are still, as far as I
+know,  Lisp code.  (See Greenspun's Tenth Rule.)[2] Robert Morris says that I didn't need to be secretive, because
+even if our competitors had known we were using Lisp, they wouldn't
+have understood why:  "If they were that smart they'd already be
+programming in Lisp."[3] All languages are equally powerful in the sense of being Turing
+equivalent, but that's not the sense of the word programmers care
+about. (No one wants to program a Turing machine.)  The kind of
+power programmers care about may not be formally definable, but
+one way to explain it would be to say that it refers to features
+you could only get in the less powerful language by writing an
+interpreter for the more powerful language in it. If language A
+has an operator for removing spaces from strings and language B
+doesn't, that probably doesn't make A more powerful, because you
+can probably write a subroutine to do it in B.  But if A supports,
+say, recursion, and B doesn't, that's not likely to be something
+you can fix by writing library functions.[4] Note to nerds: or possibly a lattice, narrowing toward the top;
+it's not the shape that matters here but the idea that there is at
+least a partial order.[5] It is a bit misleading to treat macros as a separate feature.
+In practice their usefulness is greatly enhanced by other Lisp
+features like lexical closures and rest parameters.[6] As a result, comparisons of programming languages either take
+the form of religious wars or undergraduate textbooks so determinedly
+neutral that they're really works of anthropology.  People who
+value their peace, or want tenure, avoid the topic.  But the question
+is only half a religious one; there is something there worth
+studying, especially if you want to design new languages.

PaulGrahamEssays/before.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,387 @@
+
+
+Want to start a startup?  Get funded by
+Y Combinator.
+
+
+
+
+October 2014(This essay is derived from a guest lecture in Sam Altman's startup class at
+Stanford.  It's intended for college students, but much of it is
+applicable to potential founders at other ages.)One of the advantages of having kids is that when you have to give
+advice, you can ask yourself "what would I tell my own kids?"  My
+kids are little, but I can imagine what I'd tell them about startups
+if they were in college, and that's what I'm going to tell you.Startups are very counterintuitive.  I'm not sure why.  Maybe it's
+just because knowledge about them hasn't permeated our culture yet.
+But whatever the reason, starting a startup is a task where you
+can't always trust your instincts.It's like skiing in that way.  When you first try skiing and you
+want to slow down, your instinct is to lean back.  But if you lean
+back on skis you fly down the hill out of control.  So part of
+learning to ski is learning to suppress that impulse.  Eventually
+you get new habits, but at first it takes a conscious effort.  At
+first there's a list of things you're trying to remember as you
+start down the hill.Startups are as unnatural as skiing, so there's a similar list for
+startups. Here I'm going to give you the first part of it — the things
+to remember if you want to prepare yourself to start a startup.
+CounterintuitiveThe first item on it is the fact I already mentioned: that startups
+are so weird that if you trust your instincts, you'll make a lot
+of mistakes.  If you know nothing more than this, you may at least
+pause before making them.When I was running Y Combinator I used to joke that our function
+was to tell founders things they would ignore.  It's really true.
+Batch after batch, the YC partners warn founders about mistakes
+they're about to make, and the founders ignore them, and then come
+back a year later and say "I wish we'd listened."Why do the founders ignore the partners' advice?  Well, that's the
+thing about counterintuitive ideas: they contradict your intuitions.
+They seem wrong.  So of course your first impulse is to disregard
+them.  And in fact my joking description is not merely the curse
+of Y Combinator but part of its raison d'etre. If founders' instincts
+already gave them the right answers, they wouldn't need us.  You
+only need other people to give you advice that surprises you. That's
+why there are a lot of ski instructors and not many running
+instructors.
+[1]You can, however, trust your instincts about people.  And in fact
+one of the most common mistakes young founders make is not to
+do that enough.  They get involved with people who seem impressive,
+but about whom they feel some misgivings personally.  Later when
+things blow up they say "I knew there was something off about him,
+but I ignored it because he seemed so impressive."If you're thinking about getting involved with someone — as a
+cofounder, an employee, an investor, or an acquirer — and you
+have misgivings about them, trust your gut.  If someone seems
+slippery, or bogus, or a jerk, don't ignore it.This is one case where it pays to be self-indulgent. Work with
+people you genuinely like, and you've known long enough to be sure.
+ExpertiseThe second counterintuitive point is that it's not that important
+to know a lot about startups.  The way to succeed in a startup is
+not to be an expert on startups, but to be an expert on your users
+and the problem you're solving for them.
+Mark Zuckerberg didn't succeed because he was an expert on startups.
+He succeeded despite being a complete noob at startups, because he
+understood his users really well.If you don't know anything about, say, how to raise an angel round,
+don't feel bad on that account.  That sort of thing you can learn
+when you need to, and forget after you've done it.In fact, I worry it's not merely unnecessary to learn in great
+detail about the mechanics of startups, but possibly somewhat
+dangerous.  If I met an undergrad who knew all about convertible
+notes and employee agreements and (God forbid) class FF stock, I
+wouldn't think "here is someone who is way ahead of their peers."
+It would set off alarms.  Because another of the characteristic
+mistakes of young founders is to go through the motions of starting
+a startup.  They make up some plausible-sounding idea, raise money
+at a good valuation, rent a cool office, hire a bunch of people.
+From the outside that seems like what startups do.  But the next
+step after rent a cool office and hire a bunch of people is: gradually
+realize how completely fucked they are, because while imitating all
+the outward forms of a startup they have neglected the one thing
+that's actually essential: making something people want.
+GameWe saw this happen so often that we made up a name for it: playing
+house.  Eventually I realized why it was happening.  The reason
+young founders go through the motions of starting a startup is
+because that's what they've been trained to do for their whole lives
+up to that point.  Think about what you have to do to get into
+college, for example.  Extracurricular activities, check.  Even in
+college classes most of the work is as artificial as running laps.I'm not attacking the educational system for being this way. There
+will always be a certain amount of fakeness in the work you do when
+you're being taught something, and if you measure their performance
+it's inevitable that people will exploit the difference to the point
+where much of what you're measuring is artifacts of the fakeness.I confess I did it myself in college. I found that in a lot of
+classes there might only be 20 or 30 ideas that were the right shape
+to make good exam questions.  The way I studied for exams in these
+classes was not (except incidentally) to master the material taught
+in the class, but to make a list of potential exam questions and
+work out the answers in advance. When I walked into the final, the
+main thing I'd be feeling was curiosity about which of my questions
+would turn up on the exam.  It was like a game.It's not surprising that after being trained for their whole lives
+to play such games, young founders' first impulse on starting a
+startup is to try to figure out the tricks for winning at this new
+game. Since fundraising appears to be the measure of success for
+startups (another classic noob mistake), they always want to know what the
+tricks are for convincing investors.  We tell them the best way to
+convince investors is to make a startup
+that's actually doing well, meaning growing fast, and then simply
+tell investors so.  Then they want to know what the tricks are for
+growing fast.  And we have to tell them the best way to do that is
+simply to make something people want.So many of the conversations YC partners have with young founders
+begin with the founder asking "How do we..." and the partner replying
+"Just..."Why do the founders always make things so complicated?  The reason,
+I realized, is that they're looking for the trick.So this is the third counterintuitive thing to remember about
+startups: starting a startup is where gaming the system stops
+working.  Gaming the system may continue to work if you go to work
+for a big company. Depending on how broken the company is, you can
+succeed by sucking up to the right people, giving the impression
+of productivity, and so on. 
+[2]
+But that doesn't work with startups.
+There is no boss to trick, only users, and all users care about is
+whether your product does what they want. Startups are as impersonal
+as physics.  You have to make something people want, and you prosper
+only to the extent you do.The dangerous thing is, faking does work to some degree on investors.
+If you're super good at sounding like you know what you're talking
+about, you can fool investors for at least one and perhaps even two
+rounds of funding.  But it's not in your interest to.  The company
+is ultimately doomed.  All you're doing is wasting your own time
+riding it down.So stop looking for the trick. There are tricks in startups, as
+there are in any domain, but they are an order of magnitude less
+important than solving the real problem. A founder who knows nothing
+about fundraising but has made something users love will have an
+easier time raising money than one who knows every trick in the
+book but has a flat usage graph. And more importantly, the founder
+who has made something users love is the one who will go on to
+succeed after raising the money.Though in a sense it's bad news in that you're deprived of one of
+your most powerful weapons, I think it's exciting that gaming the
+system stops working when you start a startup.  It's exciting that
+there even exist parts of the world where you win by doing good
+work.  Imagine how depressing the world would be if it were all
+like school and big companies, where you either have to spend a lot
+of time on bullshit things or lose to people who do.
+[3]
+I would
+have been delighted if I'd realized in college that there were parts
+of the real world where gaming the system mattered less than others,
+and a few where it hardly mattered at all.  But there are, and this
+variation is one of the most important things to consider when
+you're thinking about your future.  How do you win in each type of
+work, and what would you like to win by doing?
+[4]
+All-ConsumingThat brings us to our fourth counterintuitive point: startups are
+all-consuming.  If you start a startup, it will take over your life
+to a degree you cannot imagine.  And if your startup succeeds, it
+will take over your life for a long time: for several years at the
+very least, maybe for a decade, maybe for the rest of your working
+life.  So there is a real opportunity cost here.Larry Page may seem to have an enviable life, but there are aspects
+of it that are unenviable.  Basically at 25 he started running as
+fast as he could and it must seem to him that he hasn't stopped to
+catch his breath since.  Every day new shit happens in the Google
+empire that only the CEO can deal with, and he, as CEO, has to deal
+with it.  If he goes on vacation for even a week, a whole week's
+backlog of shit accumulates.  And he has to bear this uncomplainingly,
+partly because as the company's daddy he can never show fear or
+weakness, and partly because billionaires get less than zero sympathy
+if they talk about having difficult lives.  Which has the strange
+side effect that the difficulty of being a successful startup founder
+is concealed from almost everyone except those who've done it.Y Combinator has now funded several companies that can be called
+big successes, and in every single case the founders say the same
+thing.  It never gets any easier.  The nature of the problems change.
+You're worrying about construction delays at your London office
+instead of the broken air conditioner in your studio apartment.
+But the total volume of worry never decreases; if anything it
+increases.Starting a successful startup is similar to having kids in that
+it's like a button you push that changes your life irrevocably.
+And while it's truly wonderful having kids, there are a lot of
+things that are easier to do before you have them than after.  Many
+of which will make you a better parent when you do have kids. And
+since you can delay pushing the button for a while, most people in
+rich countries do.Yet when it comes to startups, a lot of people seem to think they're
+supposed to start them while they're still in college.  Are you
+crazy?  And what are the universities thinking?  They go out of
+their way to ensure their students are well supplied with contraceptives,
+and yet they're setting up entrepreneurship programs and startup
+incubators left and right.To be fair, the universities have their hand forced here.  A lot
+of incoming students are interested in startups.  Universities are,
+at least de facto, expected to prepare them for their careers.  So
+students who want to start startups hope universities can teach
+them about startups.  And whether universities can do this or not,
+there's some pressure to claim they can, lest they lose applicants
+to other universities that do.Can universities teach students about startups?  Yes and no.  They
+can teach students about startups, but as I explained before, this
+is not what you need to know.  What you need to learn about are the
+needs of your own users, and you can't do that until you actually
+start the company.
+[5]
+So starting a startup is intrinsically
+something you can only really learn by doing it.  And it's impossible
+to do that in college, for the reason I just explained: startups
+take over your life.  You can't start a startup for real as a
+student, because if you start a startup for real you're not a student
+anymore. You may be nominally a student for a bit, but you won't even
+be that for long.
+[6]Given this dichotomy, which of the two paths should you take?  Be
+a real student and not start a startup, or start a real startup and
+not be a student?  I can answer that one for you. Do not start a
+startup in college.  How to start a startup is just a subset of a
+bigger problem you're trying to solve: how to have a good life.
+And though starting a startup can be part of a good life for a lot
+of ambitious people, age 20 is not the optimal time to do it.
+Starting a startup is like a brutally fast depth-first search.  Most
+people should still be searching breadth-first at 20.You can do things in your early 20s that you can't do as well before
+or after, like plunge deeply into projects on a whim and travel
+super cheaply with no sense of a deadline.  For unambitious people,
+this sort of thing is the dreaded "failure to launch," but for the
+ambitious ones it can be an incomparably valuable sort of exploration.
+If you start a startup at 20 and you're sufficiently successful,
+you'll never get to do it.
+[7]Mark Zuckerberg will never get to bum around a foreign country.  He
+can do other things most people can't, like charter jets to fly him
+to foreign countries. But success has taken a lot of the serendipity
+out of his life. Facebook is running him as much as he's running
+Facebook. And while it can be very cool to be in the grip of a
+project you consider your life's work, there are advantages to
+serendipity too, especially early in life.  Among other things it
+gives you more options to choose your life's work from.There's not even a tradeoff here. You're not sacrificing anything
+if you forgo starting a startup at 20, because you're more likely
+to succeed if you wait.  In the unlikely case that you're 20 and
+one of your side projects takes off like Facebook did, you'll face
+a choice of running with it or not, and it may be reasonable to run
+with it.  But the usual way startups take off is for the founders
+to make them take off, and it's gratuitously
+stupid to do that at 20.
+TryShould you do it at any age?  I realize I've made startups sound
+pretty hard.  If I haven't, let me try again: starting a startup
+is really hard.  What if it's too hard?  How can you tell if you're
+up to this challenge?The answer is the fifth counterintuitive point: you can't tell. Your
+life so far may have given you some idea what your prospects might
+be if you tried to become a mathematician, or a professional football
+player.  But unless you've had a very strange life you haven't done
+much that was like being a startup founder.
+Starting a startup will change you a lot.  So what you're trying
+to estimate is not just what you are, but what you could grow into,
+and who can do that?For the past 9 years it was my job to predict whether people would
+have what it took to start successful startups.  It was easy to
+tell how smart they were, and most people reading this will be over
+that threshold.  The hard part was predicting how tough and ambitious they would become.  There
+may be no one who has more experience at trying to predict that,
+so I can tell you how much an expert can know about it, and the
+answer is: not much.  I learned to keep a completely open mind about
+which of the startups in each batch would turn out to be the stars.The founders sometimes think they know. Some arrive feeling sure
+they will ace Y Combinator just as they've aced every one of the (few,
+artificial, easy) tests they've faced in life so far.  Others arrive
+wondering how they got in, and hoping YC doesn't discover whatever
+mistake caused it to accept them.  But there is little correlation
+between founders' initial attitudes and how well their companies
+do.I've read that the same is true in the military — that the
+swaggering recruits are no more likely to turn out to be really
+tough than the quiet ones. And probably for the same reason: that
+the tests involved are so different from the ones in their previous
+lives.If you're absolutely terrified of starting a startup, you probably
+shouldn't do it.  But if you're merely unsure whether you're up to
+it, the only way to find out is to try.  Just not now.
+IdeasSo if you want to start a startup one day, what should you do in
+college?  There are only two things you need initially: an idea and
+cofounders.  And the m.o. for getting both is the same.  Which leads
+to our sixth and last counterintuitive point: that the way to get
+startup ideas is not to try to think of startup ideas.I've written a whole essay on this,
+so I won't repeat it all here.  But the short version is that if
+you make a conscious effort to think of startup ideas, the ideas
+you come up with will not merely be bad, but bad and plausible-sounding,
+meaning you'll waste a lot of time on them before realizing they're
+bad.The way to come up with good startup ideas is to take a step back.
+Instead of making a conscious effort to think of startup ideas,
+turn your mind into the type that startup ideas form in without any
+conscious effort.  In fact, so unconsciously that you don't even
+realize at first that they're startup ideas.This is not only possible, it's how Apple, Yahoo, Google, and
+Facebook all got started.  None of these companies were even meant
+to be companies at first.  They were all just side projects.  The
+best startups almost have to start as side projects, because great
+ideas tend to be such outliers that your conscious mind would reject
+them as ideas for companies.Ok, so how do you turn your mind into the type that startup ideas
+form in unconsciously?  (1) Learn a lot about things that matter,
+then (2) work on problems that interest you (3) with people you
+like and respect.  The third part, incidentally, is how you get
+cofounders at the same time as the idea.The first time I wrote that paragraph, instead of "learn a lot about
+things that matter," I wrote "become good at some technology." But
+that prescription, though sufficient, is too narrow.  What was
+special about Brian Chesky and Joe Gebbia was not that they were
+experts in technology.  They were good at design, and perhaps even
+more importantly, they were good at organizing groups and making
+projects happen.  So you don't have to work on technology per se,
+so long as you work on problems demanding enough to stretch you.What kind of problems are those?  That is very hard to answer in
+the general case.  History is full of examples of young people who
+were working on important problems that no
+one else at the time thought were important, and in particular
+that their parents didn't think were important.  On the other hand,
+history is even fuller of examples of parents who thought their
+kids were wasting their time and who were right.  So how do you
+know when you're working on real stuff?
+[8]I know how I know.  Real problems are interesting, and I am
+self-indulgent in the sense that I always want to work on interesting
+things, even if no one else cares about them (in fact, especially
+if no one else cares about them), and find it very hard to make
+myself work on boring things, even if they're supposed to be
+important.My life is full of case after case where I worked on something just
+because it seemed interesting, and it turned out later to be useful
+in some worldly way.  Y
+Combinator itself was something I only did because it seemed
+interesting. So I seem to have some sort of internal compass that
+helps me out.  But I don't know what other people have in their
+heads. Maybe if I think more about this I can come up with heuristics
+for recognizing genuinely interesting problems, but for the moment
+the best I can offer is the hopelessly question-begging advice that
+if you have a taste for genuinely interesting problems, indulging
+it energetically is the best way to prepare yourself for a startup.
+And indeed, probably also the best way to live.
+[9]But although I can't explain in the general case what counts as an
+interesting problem, I can tell you about a large subset of them.
+If you think of technology as something that's spreading like a
+sort of fractal stain, every moving point on the edge represents
+an interesting problem.  So one guaranteed way to turn your mind
+into the type that has good startup ideas is to get yourself to the
+leading edge of some technology — to cause yourself, as Paul
+Buchheit put it, to "live in the future." When you reach that point,
+ideas that will seem to other people uncannily prescient will seem
+obvious to you.  You may not realize they're startup ideas, but
+you'll know they're something that ought to exist.For example, back at Harvard in the mid 90s a fellow grad student
+of my friends Robert and Trevor wrote his own voice over IP software.
+He didn't mean it to be a startup, and he never tried to turn it
+into one.  He just wanted to talk to his girlfriend in Taiwan without
+paying for long distance calls, and since he was an expert on
+networks it seemed obvious to him that the way to do it was turn
+the sound into packets and ship it over the Internet. He never did
+any more with his software than talk to his girlfriend, but this
+is exactly the way the best startups get started.So strangely enough the optimal thing to do in college if you want
+to be a successful startup founder is not some sort of new, vocational
+version of college focused on "entrepreneurship." It's the classic
+version of college as education for its own sake. If you want to
+start a startup after college, what you should do in college is
+learn powerful things.  And if you have genuine intellectual
+curiosity, that's what you'll naturally tend to do if you just
+follow your own inclinations.
+[10]The component of entrepreneurship that really matters is domain
+expertise.  The way to become Larry Page was to become an expert
+on search. And the way to become an expert on search was to be
+driven by genuine curiosity, not some ulterior motive.At its best, starting a startup is merely an ulterior motive for
+curiosity.  And you'll do it best if you introduce the ulterior
+motive toward the end of the process.So here is the ultimate advice for young would-be startup founders,
+boiled down to two words: just learn.
+Notes[1]
+Some founders listen more than others, and this tends to be a
+predictor of success. One of the things I
+remember about the Airbnbs during YC is how intently they listened.[2]
+In fact, this is one of the reasons startups are possible.  If
+big companies weren't plagued by internal inefficiencies, they'd
+be proportionately more effective, leaving less room for startups.[3]
+In a startup you have to spend a lot of time on schleps, but this sort of work is merely
+unglamorous, not bogus.[4]
+What should you do if your true calling is gaming the system?
+Management consulting.[5]
+The company may not be incorporated, but if you start to get
+significant numbers of users, you've started it, whether you realize
+it yet or not.[6]
+It shouldn't be that surprising that colleges can't teach
+students how to be good startup founders, because they can't teach
+them how to be good employees either.The way universities "teach" students how to be employees is to
+hand off the task to companies via internship programs.  But you
+couldn't do the equivalent thing for startups, because by definition
+if the students did well they would never come back.[7]
+Charles Darwin was 22 when he received an invitation to travel
+aboard the HMS Beagle as a naturalist.  It was only because he was
+otherwise unoccupied, to a degree that alarmed his family, that he
+could accept it. And yet if he hadn't we probably would not know
+his name.[8]
+Parents can sometimes be especially conservative in this
+department.  There are some whose definition of important problems
+includes only those on the critical path to med school.[9]
+I did manage to think of a heuristic for detecting whether you
+have a taste for interesting ideas: whether you find known boring
+ideas intolerable.  Could you endure studying literary theory, or
+working in middle management at a large company?[10]
+In fact, if your goal is to start a startup, you can stick
+even more closely to the ideal of a liberal education than past
+generations have. Back when students focused mainly on getting a
+job after college, they thought at least a little about how the
+courses they took might look to an employer.  And perhaps even
+worse, they might shy away from taking a difficult class lest they
+get a low grade, which would harm their all-important GPA.  Good
+news: users don't care what your GPA
+was.  And I've never heard of investors caring either.  Y Combinator
+certainly never asks what classes you took in college or what grades
+you got in them.
+Thanks to Sam Altman, Paul Buchheit, John Collison, Patrick
+Collison, Jessica Livingston, Robert Morris, Geoff Ralston, and
+Fred Wilson for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/bias.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+October 2015This will come as a surprise to a lot of people, but in some cases
+it's possible to detect bias in a selection process without knowing
+anything about the applicant pool.  Which is exciting because among
+other things it means third parties can use this technique to detect
+bias whether those doing the selecting want them to or not.You can use this technique whenever (a) you have at least
+a random sample of the applicants that were selected, (b) their
+subsequent performance is measured, and (c) the groups of
+applicants you're comparing have roughly equal distribution of ability.How does it work?  Think about what it means to be biased.  What
+it means for a selection process to be biased against applicants
+of type x is that it's harder for them to make it through.  Which
+means applicants of type x have to be better to get selected than
+applicants not of type x.
+[1]
+Which means applicants of type x
+who do make it through the selection process will outperform other
+successful applicants.  And if the performance of all the successful
+applicants is measured, you'll know if they do.Of course, the test you use to measure performance must be a valid
+one.  And in particular it must not be invalidated by the bias you're
+trying to measure.
+But there are some domains where performance can be measured, and
+in those detecting bias is straightforward. Want to know if the
+selection process was biased against some type of applicant?  Check
+whether they outperform the others.  This is not just a heuristic
+for detecting bias.  It's what bias means.For example, many suspect that venture capital firms are biased
+against female founders. This would be easy to detect: among their
+portfolio companies, do startups with female founders outperform
+those without?  A couple months ago, one VC firm (almost certainly
+unintentionally) published a study showing bias of this type. First
+Round Capital found that among its portfolio companies, startups
+with female founders outperformed
+those without by 63%. 
+[2]The reason I began by saying that this technique would come as a
+surprise to many people is that we so rarely see analyses of this
+type.  I'm sure it will come as a surprise to First Round that they
+performed one. I doubt anyone there realized that by limiting their
+sample to their own portfolio, they were producing a study not of
+startup trends but of their own biases when selecting companies.I predict we'll see this technique used more in the future.  The
+information needed to conduct such studies is increasingly available.
+Data about who applies for things is usually closely guarded by the
+organizations selecting them, but nowadays data about who gets
+selected is often publicly available to anyone who takes the trouble
+to aggregate it.
+Notes[1]
+This technique wouldn't work if the selection process looked
+for different things from different types of applicants—for
+example, if an employer hired men based on their ability but women
+based on their appearance.[2]
+As Paul Buchheit points out, First Round excluded their most 
+successful investment, Uber, from the study.  And while it 
+makes sense to exclude outliers from some types of studies, 
+studies of returns from startup investing, which is all about 
+hitting outliers, are not one of them.
+Thanks to Sam Altman, Jessica Livingston, and Geoff Ralston for reading
+drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/boss.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,218 @@
+
+
+Want to start a startup?  Get funded by
+Y Combinator.
+
+
+
+
+March 2008, rev. June 2008Technology tends to separate normal from natural.  Our bodies
+weren't designed to eat the foods that people in rich countries eat, or
+to get so little exercise.  
+There may be a similar problem with the way we work: 
+a normal job may be as bad for us intellectually as white flour
+or sugar is for us physically.I began to suspect this after spending several years working 
+with startup founders.  I've now worked with over 200 of them, and I've
+noticed a definite difference between programmers working on their
+own startups and those working for large organizations.
+I wouldn't say founders seem happier, necessarily;
+starting a startup can be very stressful. Maybe the best way to put
+it is to say that they're happier in the sense that your body is
+happier during a long run than sitting on a sofa eating
+doughnuts.Though they're statistically abnormal, startup founders seem to be
+working in a way that's more natural for humans.I was in Africa last year and saw a lot of animals in the wild that
+I'd only seen in zoos before. It was remarkable how different they
+seemed. Particularly lions. Lions in the wild seem about ten times
+more alive. They're like different animals. I suspect that working
+for oneself feels better to humans in much the same way that living
+in the wild must feel better to a wide-ranging predator like a lion.
+Life in a zoo is easier, but it isn't the life they were designed
+for.
+TreesWhat's so unnatural about working for a big company?  The root of
+the problem is that humans weren't meant to work in such large
+groups.Another thing you notice when you see animals in the wild is that
+each species thrives in groups of a certain size.  A herd of impalas
+might have 100 adults; baboons maybe 20; lions rarely 10.  Humans
+also seem designed to work in groups, and what I've read about
+hunter-gatherers accords with research on organizations and my own
+experience to suggest roughly what the ideal size is: groups of 8
+work well; by 20 they're getting hard to manage; and a group of 50
+is really unwieldy.
+[1]
+Whatever the upper limit is, we are clearly not meant to work in
+groups of several hundred.  And yet—for reasons having more
+to do with technology than human nature—a great many people
+work for companies with hundreds or thousands of employees.Companies know groups that large wouldn't work, so they divide
+themselves into units small enough to work together.  But to
+coordinate these they have to introduce something new: bosses.These smaller groups are always arranged in a tree structure.  Your
+boss is the point where your group attaches to the tree.  But when
+you use this trick for dividing a large group into smaller ones,
+something strange happens that I've never heard anyone mention
+explicitly.  In the group one level up from yours, your boss
+represents your entire group.  A group of 10 managers is not merely
+a group of 10 people working together in the usual way.  It's really
+a group of groups.  Which means for a group of 10 managers to work
+together as if they were simply a group of 10 individuals, the group
+working for each manager would have to work as if they were a single
+person—the workers and manager would each share only one
+person's worth of freedom between them.In practice a group of people are never able to act as if they were
+one person.  But in a large organization divided into groups in
+this way, the pressure is always in that direction.  Each group
+tries its best to work as if it were the small group of individuals
+that humans were designed to work in.  That was the point of creating
+it.  And when you propagate that constraint, the result is that
+each person gets freedom of action in inverse proportion to the
+size of the entire tree.
+[2]Anyone who's worked for a large organization has felt this.  You
+can feel the difference between working for a company with 100
+employees and one with 10,000, even if your group has only 10 people.
+Corn SyrupA group of 10 people within a large organization is a kind of fake
+tribe.  The number of people you interact with is about right.  But
+something is missing: individual initiative.  Tribes of hunter-gatherers
+have much more freedom.  The leaders have a little more power than other
+members of the tribe, but they don't generally tell them what to
+do and when the way a boss can.It's not your boss's fault.  The real problem is that in the group
+above you in the hierarchy, your entire group is one virtual person.
+Your boss is just the way that constraint is imparted to you.So working in a group of 10 people within a large organization feels
+both right and wrong at the same time.   On the surface it feels
+like the kind of group you're meant to work in, but something major
+is missing.  A job at a big company is like high fructose corn
+syrup: it has some of the qualities of things you're meant to like,
+but is disastrously lacking in others.Indeed, food is an excellent metaphor to explain what's wrong with
+the usual sort of job.For example, working for a big company is the default thing to do,
+at least for programmers.  How bad could it be?  Well, food shows
+that pretty clearly.  If you were dropped at a random point in
+America today, nearly all the food around you would be bad for you.
+Humans were not designed to eat white flour, refined sugar, high
+fructose corn syrup, and hydrogenated vegetable oil.  And yet if
+you analyzed the contents of the average grocery store you'd probably
+find these four ingredients accounted for most of the calories.
+"Normal" food is terribly bad for you.  The only people who eat
+what humans were actually designed to eat are a few Birkenstock-wearing
+weirdos in Berkeley.If "normal" food is so bad for us, why is it so common?  There are
+two main reasons. One is that it has more immediate appeal.  You
+may feel lousy an hour after eating that pizza, but eating the first
+couple bites feels great.  The other is economies of scale.
+Producing junk food scales; producing fresh vegetables doesn't.
+Which means (a) junk food can be very cheap, and (b) it's worth
+spending a lot to market it.If people have to choose between something that's cheap, heavily
+marketed, and appealing in the short term, and something that's
+expensive, obscure, and appealing in the long term, which do you
+think most will choose?It's the same with work.  The average MIT graduate wants to work
+at Google or Microsoft, because it's a recognized brand, it's safe,
+and they'll get paid a good salary right away.  It's the job
+equivalent of the pizza they had for lunch.  The drawbacks will
+only become apparent later, and then only in a vague sense of
+malaise.And founders and early employees of startups, meanwhile, are like
+the Birkenstock-wearing weirdos of Berkeley:  though a tiny minority
+of the population, they're the ones living as humans are meant to.
+In an artificial world, only extremists live naturally.
+ProgrammersThe restrictiveness of big company jobs is particularly hard on
+programmers, because the essence of programming is to build new
+things.  Sales people make much the same pitches every day; support
+people answer much the same questions; but once you've written a
+piece of code you don't need to write it again.  So a programmer
+working as programmers are meant to is always making new things.
+And when you're part of an organization whose structure gives each
+person freedom in inverse proportion to the size of the tree, you're
+going to face resistance when you do something new.This seems an inevitable consequence of bigness.  It's true even
+in the smartest companies.  I was talking recently to a founder who
+considered starting a startup right out of college, but went to
+work for Google instead because he thought he'd learn more there.
+He didn't learn as much as he expected.  Programmers learn by doing,
+and most of the things he wanted to do, he couldn't—sometimes
+because the company wouldn't let him, but often because the company's
+code wouldn't let him.  Between the drag of legacy code, the overhead
+of doing development in such a large organization, and the restrictions
+imposed by interfaces owned by other groups, he could only try a
+fraction of the things he would have liked to.  He said he has
+learned much more in his own startup, despite the fact that he has
+to do all the company's errands as well as programming, because at
+least when he's programming he can do whatever he wants.An obstacle downstream propagates upstream.  If you're not allowed
+to implement new ideas, you stop having them.  And vice versa: when
+you can do whatever you want, you have more ideas about what to do.
+So working for yourself makes your brain more powerful in the same
+way a low-restriction exhaust system makes an engine more powerful.Working for yourself doesn't have to mean starting a startup, of
+course.  But a programmer deciding between a regular job at a big
+company and their own startup is probably going to learn more doing
+the startup.You can adjust the amount of freedom you get by scaling the size
+of company you work for.  If you start the company, you'll have the
+most freedom.  If you become one of the first 10 employees you'll
+have almost as much freedom as the founders.  Even a company with
+100 people will feel different from one with 1000.Working for a small company doesn't ensure freedom.  The tree
+structure of large organizations sets an upper bound on freedom,
+not a lower bound.  The head of a small company may still choose
+to be a tyrant.  The point is that a large organization is compelled
+by its structure to be one.
+ConsequencesThat has real consequences for both organizations and individuals.
+One is that companies will inevitably slow down as they grow larger,
+no matter how hard they try to keep their startup mojo.  It's a
+consequence of the tree structure that every large organization is
+forced to adopt.Or rather, a large organization could only avoid slowing down if
+they avoided tree structure.  And since human nature limits the
+size of group that can work together, the only way I can imagine
+for larger groups to avoid tree structure would be to have no
+structure: to have each group actually be independent, and to work
+together the way components of a market economy do.That might be worth exploring.  I suspect there are already some
+highly partitionable businesses that lean this way.  But I don't
+know any technology companies that have done it.There is one thing companies can do short of structuring themselves
+as sponges:  they can stay small.  If I'm right, then it really
+pays to keep a company as small as it can be at every stage.
+Particularly a technology company.  Which means it's doubly important
+to hire the best people.  Mediocre hires hurt you twice: they get
+less done, but they also make you big, because you need more of
+them to solve a given problem.For individuals the upshot is the same: aim small.  It will always
+suck to work for large organizations, and the larger the organization,
+the more it will suck.In an essay I wrote a couple years ago 
+I advised graduating seniors
+to work for a couple years for another company before starting their
+own.  I'd modify that now.  Work for another company if you want
+to, but only for a small one, and if you want to start your own
+startup, go ahead.The reason I suggested college graduates not start startups immediately
+was that I felt most would fail.  And they will.  But ambitious
+programmers are better off doing their own thing and failing than
+going to work at a big company.  Certainly they'll learn more.  They
+might even be better off financially.  A lot of people in their
+early twenties get into debt, because their expenses grow even
+faster than the salary that seemed so high when they left school.
+At least if you start a startup and fail your net worth will be
+zero rather than negative.  
+[3]We've now funded so many different types of founders that we have
+enough data to see patterns, and there seems to be no benefit from
+working for a big company.  The people who've worked for a few years
+do seem better than the ones straight out of college, but only
+because they're that much older.The people who come to us from big companies often seem kind of
+conservative.  It's hard to say how much is because big companies
+made them that way, and how much is the natural conservatism that
+made them work for the big companies in the first place.  But
+certainly a large part of it is learned.  I know because I've seen
+it burn off.Having seen that happen so many times is one of the things that
+convinces me that working for oneself, or at least for a small
+group, is the natural way for programmers to live.  Founders arriving
+at Y Combinator often have the downtrodden air of refugees.  Three
+months later they're transformed: they have so much more 
+confidence
+that they seem as if they've grown several inches taller. 
+[4]
+Strange as this sounds, they seem both more worried and happier at the same
+time.  Which is exactly how I'd describe the way lions seem in the
+wild.Watching employees get transformed into founders makes it clear
+that the difference between the two is due mostly to environment—and
+in particular that the environment in big companies is toxic to
+programmers.   In the first couple weeks of working on their own
+startup they seem to come to life, because finally they're working
+the way people are meant to.Notes[1]
+When I talk about humans being meant or designed to live a
+certain way, I mean by evolution.[2]
+It's not only the leaves who suffer.  The constraint propagates
+up as well as down.  So managers are constrained too; instead of
+just doing things, they have to act through subordinates.[3]
+Do not finance your startup with credit cards.  Financing a
+startup with debt is usually a stupid move, and credit card debt
+stupidest of all.  Credit card debt is a bad idea, period.  It is
+a trap set by evil companies for the desperate and the foolish.[4]
+The founders we fund used to be younger (initially we encouraged
+undergrads to apply), and the first couple times I saw this I used
+to wonder if they were actually getting physically taller.Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Ross Boucher, Aaron Iba, Abby
+Kirigin, Ivan Kirigin, Jessica Livingston, and Robert Morris for
+reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/copy.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+July 2006
+When I was in high school I spent a lot of time imitating bad
+writers.  What we studied in English classes was mostly fiction,
+so I assumed that was the highest form of writing.  Mistake number
+one.  The stories that seemed to be most admired were ones in which
+people suffered in complicated ways.  Anything funny or
+gripping was ipso facto suspect, unless it was old enough to be hard to
+understand, like Shakespeare or Chaucer.  Mistake number two.  The
+ideal medium seemed the short story, which I've since learned had
+quite a brief life, roughly coincident with the peak of magazine
+publishing.  But since their size made them perfect for use in
+high school classes, we read a lot of them, which gave us the
+impression the short story was flourishing.  Mistake number three.
+And because they were so short, nothing really had to happen; you
+could just show a randomly truncated slice of life, and that was
+considered advanced.  Mistake number four.  The result was that I
+wrote a lot of stories in which nothing happened except that someone
+was unhappy in a way that seemed deep.For most of college I was a philosophy major.  I was very impressed
+by the papers published in philosophy journals.  They were so
+beautifully typeset, and their tone was just captivating—alternately
+casual and buffer-overflowingly technical.  A fellow would be walking
+along a street and suddenly modality qua modality would spring upon
+him.  I didn't ever quite understand these papers, but I figured
+I'd get around to that later, when I had time to reread them more
+closely.  In the meantime I tried my best to imitate them.  This
+was, I can now see, a doomed undertaking, because they weren't
+really saying anything.  No philosopher ever refuted another, for
+example, because no one said anything definite enough to refute.
+Needless to say, my imitations didn't say anything either.In grad school I was still wasting time imitating the wrong things.
+There was then a fashionable type of program called an expert system,
+at the core of which was something called an inference engine.  I
+looked at what these things did and thought "I could write that in
+a thousand lines of code."  And yet eminent professors were writing
+books about them, and startups were selling them for a year's salary
+a copy.  What an opportunity, I thought; these impressive things
+seem easy to me; I must be pretty sharp.  Wrong.  It was simply a
+fad.  The books the professors wrote about expert systems are now
+ignored.  They were not even on a path to anything interesting.
+And the customers paying so much for them were largely the same
+government agencies that paid thousands for screwdrivers and toilet
+seats.How do you avoid copying the wrong things?  Copy only what you
+genuinely like.  That would have saved me in all three cases.  I
+didn't enjoy the short stories we had to read in English classes;
+I didn't learn anything from philosophy papers; I didn't use expert
+systems myself.  I believed these things were good because they
+were admired.It can be hard to separate the things you like from the things
+you're impressed with.  One trick is to ignore presentation.  Whenever
+I see a painting impressively hung in a museum, I ask myself: how
+much would I pay for this if I found it at a garage sale, dirty and
+frameless, and with no idea who painted it?  If you walk around a
+museum trying this experiment, you'll find you get some truly
+startling results.  Don't ignore this data point just because it's
+an outlier.Another way to figure out what you like is to look at what you enjoy
+as guilty pleasures.  Many things people like, especially if they're
+young and ambitious, they like largely for the feeling of virtue
+in liking them.  99% of people reading Ulysses are thinking
+"I'm reading Ulysses" as they do it. A guilty pleasure is
+at least a pure one.  What do you read when you don't feel up to being
+virtuous?  What kind of book do you read and feel sad that there's
+only half of it left, instead of being impressed that you're half
+way through?  That's what you really like.Even when you find genuinely good things to copy, there's another
+pitfall to be avoided.  Be careful to copy what makes them good,
+rather than their flaws.  It's easy to be drawn into imitating
+flaws, because they're easier to see, and of course easier to copy
+too.  For example, most painters in the eighteenth and nineteenth
+centuries used brownish colors.  They were imitating the great
+painters of the Renaissance, whose paintings by that time were brown
+with dirt.  Those paintings have since been cleaned, revealing
+brilliant colors; their imitators are of course still brown.It was painting, incidentally, that cured me of copying the wrong
+things.  Halfway through grad school I decided I wanted to try being
+a painter, and the art world was so manifestly corrupt that it
+snapped the leash of credulity.  These people made philosophy
+professors seem as scrupulous as mathematicians.  It was so clearly
+a choice of doing good work xor being an insider that I was forced
+to see the distinction.  It's there to some degree in almost every
+field, but I had till then managed to avoid facing it.That was one of the most valuable things I learned from painting:
+you have to figure out for yourself what's 
+good.  You can't trust
+authorities. They'll lie to you on this one.
+
+Comment on this essay.

PaulGrahamEssays/corpdev.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+January 2015Corporate Development, aka corp dev, is the group within companies
+that buys other companies. If you're talking to someone from corp
+dev, that's why, whether you realize it yet or not.It's usually a mistake to talk to corp dev unless (a) you want to
+sell your company right now and (b) you're sufficiently likely to
+get an offer at an acceptable price.  In practice that means startups
+should only talk to corp dev when they're either doing really well
+or really badly.  If you're doing really badly, meaning the company
+is about to die, you may as well talk to them, because you have
+nothing to lose. And if you're doing really well, you can safely
+talk to them, because you both know the price will have to be high,
+and if they show the slightest sign of wasting your time, you'll
+be confident enough to tell them to get lost.The danger is to companies in the middle.  Particularly to young
+companies that are growing fast, but haven't been doing it for long
+enough to have grown big yet.  It's usually a mistake for a promising
+company less than a year old even to talk to corp dev.But it's a mistake founders constantly make.  When someone from
+corp dev wants to meet, the founders tell themselves they should
+at least find out what they want.  Besides, they don't want to
+offend Big Company by refusing to meet.Well, I'll tell you what they want.  They want to talk about buying
+you.  That's what the title "corp dev" means.   So before agreeing
+to meet with someone from corp dev, ask yourselves, "Do we want to
+sell the company right now?"  And if the answer is no, tell them
+"Sorry, but we're focusing on growing the company."  They won't be
+offended.  And certainly the founders of Big Company won't be
+offended. If anything they'll think more highly of you.  You'll
+remind them of themselves.  They didn't sell either; that's why
+they're in a position now to buy other companies.
+[1]Most founders who get contacted by corp dev already know what it
+means.  And yet even when they know what corp dev does and know
+they don't want to sell, they take the meeting.  Why do they do it?
+The same mix of denial and wishful thinking that underlies most
+mistakes founders make. It's flattering to talk to someone who wants
+to buy you.  And who knows, maybe their offer will be surprisingly
+high.  You should at least see what it is, right?No.  If they were going to send you an offer immediately by email,
+sure, you might as well open it.  But that is not how conversations
+with corp dev work.  If you get an offer at all, it will be at the
+end of a long and unbelievably distracting process.  And if the
+offer is surprising, it will be surprisingly low.Distractions are the thing you can least afford in a startup.  And
+conversations with corp dev are the worst sort of distraction,
+because as well as consuming your attention they undermine your
+morale.  One of the tricks to surviving a grueling process is not
+to stop and think how tired you are.  Instead you get into a sort
+of flow. 
+[2]
+Imagine what it would do to you if at mile 20 of a
+marathon, someone ran up beside you and said "You must feel really
+tired.  Would you like to stop and take a rest?"  Conversations
+with corp dev are like that but worse, because the suggestion of
+stopping gets combined in your mind with the imaginary high price
+you think they'll offer.And then you're really in trouble.  If they can, corp dev people
+like to turn the tables on you. They like to get you to the point
+where you're trying to convince them to buy instead of them trying
+to convince you to sell.  And surprisingly often they succeed.This is a very slippery slope, greased with some of the most powerful
+forces that can work on founders' minds, and attended by an experienced
+professional whose full time job is to push you down it.Their tactics in pushing you down that slope are usually fairly
+brutal. Corp dev people's whole job is to buy companies, and they
+don't even get to choose which.  The only way their performance is
+measured is by how cheaply they can buy you, and the more ambitious
+ones will stop at nothing to achieve that. For example, they'll
+almost always start with a lowball offer, just to see if you'll
+take it. Even if you don't, a low initial offer will demoralize you
+and make you easier to manipulate.And that is the most innocent of their tactics. Just wait till
+you've agreed on a price and think you have a done deal, and then
+they come back and say their boss has vetoed the deal and won't do
+it for more than half the agreed upon price. Happens all the time.
+If you think investors can behave badly, it's nothing compared to
+what corp dev people can do.  Even corp dev people at companies
+that are otherwise benevolent.I remember once complaining to a
+friend at Google about some nasty trick their corp dev people had
+pulled on a YC startup."What happened to Don't be Evil?" I asked."I don't think corp dev got the memo," he replied.The tactics you encounter in M&A conversations can be like nothing
+you've experienced in the otherwise comparatively 
+upstanding world
+of Silicon Valley.  It's as if a chunk of genetic material from the
+old-fashioned robber baron business world got incorporated into the
+startup world.
+[3]The simplest way to protect yourself is to use the trick that John
+D. Rockefeller, whose grandfather was an alcoholic, used to protect
+himself from becoming one.  He once told a Sunday school class
+
+  Boys, do you know why I never became a drunkard?  Because I never
+  took the first drink.
+
+Do you want to sell your company right now?  Not eventually, right
+now.  If not, just don't take the first meeting.  They won't be
+offended.  And you in turn will be guaranteed to be spared one of
+the worst experiences that can happen to a startup.If you do want to sell, there's another set of 
+techniques
+ for doing
+that.  But the biggest mistake founders make in dealing with corp
+dev is not doing a bad job of talking to them when they're ready
+to, but talking to them before they are.  So if you remember only
+the title of this essay, you already know most of what you need to
+know about M&A in the first year.Notes[1]
+I'm not saying you should never sell.  I'm saying you should
+be clear in your own mind about whether you want to sell or not,
+and not be led by manipulation or wishful thinking into trying to
+sell earlier than you otherwise would have.[2]
+In a startup, as in most competitive sports, the task at hand
+almost does this for you; you're too busy to feel tired.  But when
+you lose that protection, e.g. at the final whistle, the fatigue
+hits you like a wave.  To talk to corp dev is to let yourself feel
+it mid-game.[3]
+To be fair, the apparent misdeeds of corp dev people are magnified
+by the fact that they function as the face of a large organization
+that often doesn't know its own mind.  Acquirers can be surprisingly
+indecisive about acquisitions, and their flakiness is indistinguishable
+from dishonesty by the time it filters down to you.Thanks to Marc Andreessen, Jessica Livingston, Geoff
+Ralston, and Qasar Younis for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/desres.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+January 2003(This article is derived from a keynote talk at the fall 2002 meeting
+of NEPLS.)Visitors to this country are often surprised to find that
+Americans like to begin a conversation by asking "what do you do?"
+I've never liked this question.  I've rarely had a
+neat answer to it.  But I think I have finally solved the problem.
+Now, when someone asks me what I do, I look them straight
+in the eye and say "I'm designing a 
+new dialect of Lisp."   
+I recommend this answer to anyone who doesn't like being asked what
+they do.  The conversation will turn immediately to other topics.I don't consider myself to be doing research on programming languages.
+I'm just designing one, in the same way that someone might design
+a building or a chair or a new typeface.
+I'm not trying to discover anything new.  I just want
+to make a language that will be good to program in.  In some ways,
+this assumption makes life a lot easier.The difference between design and research seems to be a question
+of new versus good.  Design doesn't have to be new, but it has to  
+be good.  Research doesn't have to be good, but it has to be new.
+I think these two paths converge at the top: the best design
+surpasses its predecessors by using new ideas, and the best research
+solves problems that are not only new, but actually worth solving.
+So ultimately we're aiming for the same destination, just approaching
+it from different directions.What I'm going to talk about today is what your target looks like
+from the back.  What do you do differently when you treat
+programming languages as a design problem instead of a research topic?The biggest difference is that you focus more on the user.
+Design begins by asking, who is this
+for and what do they need from it?  A good architect,
+for example, does not begin by creating a design that he then
+imposes on the users, but by studying the intended users and figuring
+out what they need.Notice I said "what they need," not "what they want."  I don't mean
+to give the impression that working as a designer means working as 
+a sort of short-order cook, making whatever the client tells you
+to.  This varies from field to field in the arts, but
+I don't think there is any field in which the best work is done by
+the people who just make exactly what the customers tell them to.The customer is always right in
+the sense that the measure of good design is how well it works
+for the user.  If you make a novel that bores everyone, or a chair
+that's horribly uncomfortable to sit in, then you've done a bad
+job, period.  It's no defense to say that the novel or the chair  
+is designed according to the most advanced theoretical principles.And yet, making what works for the user doesn't mean simply making
+what the user tells you to.  Users don't know what all the choices
+are, and are often mistaken about what they really want.The answer to the paradox, I think, is that you have to design
+for the user, but you have to design what the user needs, not simply  
+what he says he wants.
+It's much like being a doctor.  You can't just treat a patient's
+symptoms.  When a patient tells you his symptoms, you have to figure
+out what's actually wrong with him, and treat that.This focus on the user is a kind of axiom from which most of the
+practice of good design can be derived, and around which most design
+issues center.If good design must do what the user needs, who is the user?  When
+I say that design must be for users, I don't mean to imply that good 
+design aims at some kind of  
+lowest common denominator.  You can pick any group of users you
+want.  If you're designing a tool, for example, you can design it
+for anyone from beginners to experts, and what's good design
+for one group might be bad for another.  The point
+is, you have to pick some group of users.  I don't think you can
+even talk about good or bad design except with
+reference to some intended user.You're most likely to get good design if the intended users include
+the designer himself.  When you design something
+for a group that doesn't include you, it tends to be for people
+you consider to be less sophisticated than you, not more sophisticated.That's a problem, because looking down on the user, however benevolently,
+seems inevitably to corrupt the designer.
+I suspect that very few housing
+projects in the US were designed by architects who expected to live
+in them.   You can see the same thing
+in programming languages.  C, Lisp, and Smalltalk were created for
+their own designers to use.  Cobol, Ada, and Java, were created   
+for other people to use.If you think you're designing something for idiots, the odds are
+that you're not designing something good, even for idiots.
+Even if you're designing something for the most sophisticated
+users, though, you're still designing for humans.  It's different 
+in research.  In math you
+don't choose abstractions because they're
+easy for humans to understand; you choose whichever make the
+proof shorter.  I think this is true for the sciences generally.
+Scientific ideas are not meant to be ergonomic.Over in the arts, things are very different.  Design is
+all about people.  The human body is a strange
+thing, but when you're designing a chair,
+that's what you're designing for, and there's no way around it.
+All the arts have to pander to the interests and limitations
+of humans.   In painting, for example, all other things being
+equal a painting with people in it will be more interesting than
+one without.  It is not merely an accident of history that
+the great paintings of the Renaissance are all full of people.
+If they hadn't been, painting as a medium wouldn't have the prestige
+that it does.Like it or not, programming languages are also for people,
+and I suspect the human brain is just as lumpy and idiosyncratic
+as the human body.  Some ideas are easy for people to grasp
+and some aren't.  For example, we seem to have a very limited
+capacity for dealing with detail.  It's this fact that makes
+programing languages a good idea in the first place; if we
+could handle the detail, we could just program in machine
+language.Remember, too, that languages are not
+primarily a form for finished programs, but something that
+programs have to be developed in.  Anyone in the arts could
+tell you that you might want different mediums for the
+two situations.  Marble, for example, is a nice, durable
+medium for finished ideas, but a hopelessly inflexible one
+for developing new ideas.A program, like a proof,
+is a pruned version of a tree that in the past has had
+false starts branching off all over it.  So the test of
+a language is not simply how clean the finished program looks
+in it, but how clean the path to the finished program was.
+A design choice that gives you elegant finished programs
+may not give you an elegant design process.  For example, 
+I've written a few macro-defining macros full of nested
+backquotes that look now like little gems, but writing them
+took hours of the ugliest trial and error, and frankly, I'm still
+not entirely sure they're correct.We often act as if the test of a language were how good
+finished programs look in it.
+It seems so convincing when you see the same program
+written in two languages, and one version is much shorter.
+When you approach the problem from the direction of the
+arts, you're less likely to depend on this sort of
+test.  You don't want to end up with a programming
+language like marble.For example, it is a huge win in developing software to
+have an interactive toplevel, what in Lisp is called a
+read-eval-print loop.  And when you have one this has
+real effects on the design of the language.  It would not
+work well for a language where you have to declare
+variables before using them, for example.  When you're
+just typing expressions into the toplevel, you want to be 
+able to set x to some value and then start doing things
+to x.  You don't want to have to declare the type of x
+first.  You may dispute either of the premises, but if
+a language has to have a toplevel to be convenient, and
+mandatory type declarations are incompatible with a
+toplevel, then no language that makes type declarations  
+mandatory could be convenient to program in.In practice, to get good design you have to get close, and stay
+close, to your users.  You have to calibrate your ideas on actual
+users constantly, especially in the beginning.  One of the reasons
+Jane Austen's novels are so good is that she read them out loud to
+her family.  That's why she never sinks into self-indulgently arty
+descriptions of landscapes,
+or pretentious philosophizing.  (The philosophy's there, but it's
+woven into the story instead of being pasted onto it like a label.)
+If you open an average "literary" novel and imagine reading it out loud
+to your friends as something you'd written, you'll feel all too
+keenly what an imposition that kind of thing is upon the reader.In the software world, this idea is known as Worse is Better.
+Actually, there are several ideas mixed together in the concept of
+Worse is Better, which is why people are still arguing about
+whether worse
+is actually better or not.  But one of the main ideas in that
+mix is that if you're building something new, you should get a
+prototype in front of users as soon as possible.The alternative approach might be called the Hail Mary strategy.
+Instead of getting a prototype out quickly and gradually refining
+it, you try to create the complete, finished, product in one long
+touchdown pass.  As far as I know, this is a
+recipe for disaster.  Countless startups destroyed themselves this
+way during the Internet bubble.  I've never heard of a case
+where it worked.What people outside the software world may not realize is that
+Worse is Better is found throughout the arts.
+In drawing, for example, the idea was discovered during the
+Renaissance.  Now almost every drawing teacher will tell you that
+the right way to get an accurate drawing is not to
+work your way slowly around the contour of an object, because errors will
+accumulate and you'll find at the end that the lines don't meet.
+Instead you should draw a few quick lines in roughly the right place,
+and then gradually refine this initial sketch.In most fields, prototypes
+have traditionally been made out of different materials.
+Typefaces to be cut in metal were initially designed  
+with a brush on paper.  Statues to be cast in bronze   
+were modelled in wax.  Patterns to be embroidered on tapestries
+were drawn on paper with ink wash.  Buildings to be
+constructed from stone were tested on a smaller scale in wood.What made oil paint so exciting, when it
+first became popular in the fifteenth century, was that you
+could actually make the finished work from the prototype.
+You could make a preliminary drawing if you wanted to, but you
+weren't held to it; you could work out all the details, and
+even make major changes, as you finished the painting.You can do this in software too.  A prototype doesn't have to
+be just a model; you can refine it into the finished product.
+I think you should always do this when you can.  It lets you
+take advantage of new insights you have along the way.  But
+perhaps even more important, it's good for morale.Morale is key in design.  I'm surprised people
+don't talk more about it.  One of my first
+drawing teachers told me: if you're bored when you're
+drawing something, the drawing will look boring.
+For example, suppose you have to draw a building, and you
+decide to draw each brick individually.  You can do this
+if you want, but if you get bored halfway through and start
+making the bricks mechanically instead of observing each one,   
+the drawing will look worse than if you had merely suggested
+the bricks.Building something by gradually refining a prototype is good
+for morale because it keeps you engaged.  In software, my  
+rule is: always have working code.  If you're writing
+something that you'll be able to test in an hour, then you
+have the prospect of an immediate reward to motivate you.
+The same is true in the arts, and particularly in oil painting.
+Most painters start with a blurry sketch and gradually
+refine it.
+If you work this way, then in principle
+you never have to end the day with something that actually
+looks unfinished.  Indeed, there is even a saying among
+painters: "A painting is never finished, you just stop
+working on it."  This idea will be familiar to anyone who
+has worked on software.Morale is another reason that it's hard to design something
+for an unsophisticated user.   It's hard to stay interested in
+something you don't like yourself.  To make something  
+good, you have to be thinking, "wow, this is really great,"
+not "what a piece of shit; those fools will love it."Design means making things for humans.  But it's not just the
+user who's human.  The designer is human too.Notice all this time I've been talking about "the designer."
+Design usually has to be under the control of a single person to
+be any good.   And yet it seems to be possible for several people
+to collaborate on a research project.  This seems to
+me one of the most interesting differences between research and
+design.There have been famous instances of collaboration in the arts,
+but most of them seem to have been cases of molecular bonding rather
+than nuclear fusion.  In an opera it's common for one person to
+write the libretto and another to write the music.   And during the Renaissance, 
+journeymen from northern
+Europe were often employed to do the landscapes in the
+backgrounds of Italian paintings.  But these aren't true collaborations.
+They're more like examples of Robert Frost's
+"good fences make good neighbors."  You can stick instances
+of good design together, but within each individual project,
+one person has to be in control.I'm not saying that good design requires that one person think
+of everything.  There's nothing more valuable than the advice
+of someone whose judgement you trust.  But after the talking is
+done, the decision about what to do has to rest with one person.Why is it that research can be done by collaborators and  
+design can't?  This is an interesting question.  I don't 
+know the answer.  Perhaps,
+if design and research converge, the best research is also
+good design, and in fact can't be done by collaborators.
+A lot of the most famous scientists seem to have worked alone.
+But I don't know enough to say whether there
+is a pattern here.  It could be simply that many famous scientists
+worked when collaboration was less common.Whatever the story is in the sciences, true collaboration
+seems to be vanishingly rare in the arts.  Design by committee is a
+synonym for bad design.  Why is that so?  Is there some way to
+beat this limitation?I'm inclined to think there isn't-- that good design requires
+a dictator.  One reason is that good design has to   
+be all of a piece.  Design is not just for humans, but
+for individual humans.  If a design represents an idea that  
+fits in one person's head, then the idea will fit in the user's
+head too.Related:

PaulGrahamEssays/diff.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+December 2001 (rev. May 2002)
+
+(This article came about in response to some questions on
+the LL1 mailing list.  It is now
+incorporated in Revenge of the Nerds.)When McCarthy designed Lisp in the late 1950s, it was
+a radical departure from existing languages,
+the most important of which was Fortran.Lisp embodied nine new ideas:
+1. Conditionals.  A conditional is an if-then-else
+construct.  We take these for granted now.  They were 
+invented
+by McCarthy in the course of developing Lisp. 
+(Fortran at that time only had a conditional
+goto, closely based on the branch instruction in the 
+underlying hardware.)  McCarthy, who was on the Algol committee, got
+conditionals into Algol, whence they spread to most other
+languages.2. A function type. In Lisp, functions are first class 
+objects-- they're a data type just like integers, strings,
+etc, and have a literal representation, can be stored in variables,
+can be passed as arguments, and so on.3. Recursion.  Recursion existed as a mathematical concept
+before Lisp of course, but Lisp was the first programming language to support
+it.  (It's arguably implicit in making functions first class
+objects.)4. A new concept of variables.  In Lisp, all variables
+are effectively pointers. Values are what
+have types, not variables, and assigning or binding
+variables means copying pointers, not what they point to.5. Garbage-collection.6. Programs composed of expressions. Lisp programs are 
+trees of expressions, each of which returns a value.  
+(In some Lisps expressions
+can return multiple values.)  This is in contrast to Fortran
+and most succeeding languages, which distinguish between
+expressions and statements.It was natural to have this
+distinction in Fortran because (not surprisingly in a language
+where the input format was punched cards) the language was
+line-oriented.  You could not nest statements.  And
+so while you needed expressions for math to work, there was
+no point in making anything else return a value, because
+there could not be anything waiting for it.This limitation
+went away with the arrival of block-structured languages,
+but by then it was too late. The distinction between
+expressions and statements was entrenched.  It spread from 
+Fortran into Algol and thence to both their descendants.When a language is made entirely of expressions, you can
+compose expressions however you want.  You can say either
+(using Arc syntax)(if foo (= x 1) (= x 2))or(= x (if foo 1 2))7. A symbol type.  Symbols differ from strings in that
+you can test equality by comparing a pointer.8. A notation for code using trees of symbols.9. The whole language always available.  
+There is
+no real distinction between read-time, compile-time, and runtime.
+You can compile or run code while reading, read or run code
+while compiling, and read or compile code at runtime.Running code at read-time lets users reprogram Lisp's syntax;
+running code at compile-time is the basis of macros; compiling
+at runtime is the basis of Lisp's use as an extension
+language in programs like Emacs; and reading at runtime
+enables programs to communicate using s-expressions, an
+idea recently reinvented as XML.
+When Lisp was first invented, all these ideas were far
+removed from ordinary programming practice, which was
+dictated largely by the hardware available in the late 1950s.Over time, the default language, embodied
+in a succession of popular languages, has
+gradually evolved toward Lisp.  1-5 are now widespread.
+6 is starting to appear in the mainstream.
+Python has a form of 7, though there doesn't seem to be
+any syntax for it.  
+8, which (with 9) is what makes Lisp macros
+possible, is so far still unique to Lisp,
+perhaps because (a) it requires those parens, or something 
+just as bad, and (b) if you add that final increment of power, 
+you can no 
+longer claim to have invented a new language, but only
+to have designed a new dialect of Lisp ; -)Though useful to present-day programmers, it's
+strange to describe Lisp in terms of its
+variation from the random expedients other languages
+adopted.  That was not, probably, how McCarthy
+thought of it.  Lisp wasn't designed to fix the mistakes
+in Fortran; it came about more as the byproduct of an
+attempt to axiomatize computation.

PaulGrahamEssays/ecw.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+December 2014If the world were static, we could have monotonically increasing
+confidence in our beliefs.  The more (and more varied) experience
+a belief survived, the less likely it would be false.  Most people
+implicitly believe something like this about their opinions.  And
+they're justified in doing so with opinions about things that don't
+change much, like human nature.  But you can't trust your opinions
+in the same way about things that change, which could include
+practically everything else.When experts are wrong, it's often because they're experts on an
+earlier version of the world.Is it possible to avoid that?  Can you protect yourself against
+obsolete beliefs?  To some extent, yes. I spent almost a decade
+investing in early stage startups, and curiously enough protecting
+yourself against obsolete beliefs is exactly what you have to do
+to succeed as a startup investor.  Most really good startup ideas
+look like bad ideas at first, and many of those look bad specifically
+because some change in the world just switched them from bad to
+good.  I spent a lot of time learning to recognize such ideas, and
+the techniques I used may be applicable to ideas in general.The first step is to have an explicit belief in change.  People who
+fall victim to a monotonically increasing confidence in their
+opinions are implicitly concluding the world is static.  If you
+consciously remind yourself it isn't, you start to look for change.Where should one look for it?  Beyond the moderately useful
+generalization that human nature doesn't change much, the unfortunate
+fact is that change is hard to predict.  This is largely a tautology
+but worth remembering all the same: change that matters usually
+comes from an unforeseen quarter.So I don't even try to predict it.  When I get asked in interviews
+to predict the future, I always have to struggle to come up with
+something plausible-sounding on the fly, like a student who hasn't
+prepared for an exam.
+[1]
+But it's not out of laziness that I haven't
+prepared.  It seems to me that beliefs about the future are so
+rarely correct that they usually aren't worth the extra rigidity
+they impose, and that the best strategy is simply to be aggressively
+open-minded.  Instead of trying to point yourself in the right
+direction, admit you have no idea what the right direction is, and
+try instead to be super sensitive to the winds of change.It's ok to have working hypotheses, even though they may constrain
+you a bit, because they also motivate you.  It's exciting to chase
+things and exciting to try to guess answers.  But you have to be
+disciplined about not letting your hypotheses harden into anything
+more.
+[2]I believe this passive m.o. works not just for evaluating new ideas
+but also for having them.  The way to come up with new ideas is not
+to try explicitly to, but to try to solve problems and simply not
+discount weird hunches you have in the process.The winds of change originate in the unconscious minds of domain
+experts.  If you're sufficiently expert in a field, any weird idea
+or apparently irrelevant question that occurs to you is ipso facto
+worth exploring. 
+[3]
+ Within Y Combinator, when an idea is described
+as crazy, it's a compliment—in fact, on average probably a
+higher compliment than when an idea is described as good.Startup investors have extraordinary incentives for correcting
+obsolete beliefs.  If they can realize before other investors that
+some apparently unpromising startup isn't, they can make a huge
+amount of money.  But the incentives are more than just financial.
+Investors' opinions are explicitly tested: startups come to them
+and they have to say yes or no, and then, fairly quickly, they learn
+whether they guessed right.  The investors who say no to a Google
+(and there were several) will remember it for the rest of their
+lives.Anyone who must in some sense bet on ideas rather than merely
+commenting on them has similar incentives.  Which means anyone who
+wants such incentives can have them, by turning their comments into
+bets: if you write about a topic in some fairly durable and public
+form, you'll find you worry much more about getting things right
+than most people would in a casual conversation.
+[4]Another trick I've found to protect myself against obsolete beliefs
+is to focus initially on people rather than ideas. Though the nature
+of future discoveries is hard to predict, I've found I can predict
+quite well what sort of people will make them.  Good new ideas come
+from earnest, energetic, independent-minded people.Betting on people over ideas saved me countless times as an investor.
+We thought Airbnb was a bad idea, for example. But we could tell
+the founders were earnest, energetic, and independent-minded.
+(Indeed, almost pathologically so.)  So we suspended disbelief and
+funded them.This too seems a technique that should be generally applicable.
+Surround yourself with the sort of people new ideas come from.  If
+you want to notice quickly when your beliefs become obsolete, you
+can't do better than to be friends with the people whose discoveries
+will make them so.It's hard enough already not to become the prisoner of your own
+expertise, but it will only get harder, because change is accelerating.
+That's not a recent trend; change has been accelerating since the
+paleolithic era.  Ideas beget ideas.  I don't expect that to change.
+But I could be wrong.
+Notes[1]
+My usual trick is to talk about aspects of the present that
+most people haven't noticed yet.[2]
+Especially if they become well enough known that people start
+to identify them with you.  You have to be extra skeptical about
+things you want to believe, and once a hypothesis starts to be
+identified with you, it will almost certainly start to be in that
+category.[3]
+In practice "sufficiently expert" doesn't require one to be
+recognized as an expert—which is a trailing indicator in any
+case.  In many fields a year of focused work plus caring a lot would
+be enough.[4]
+Though they are public and persist indefinitely, comments on
+e.g. forums and places like Twitter seem empirically to work like
+casual conversation.  The threshold may be whether what you write
+has a title.
+Thanks to Sam Altman, Patrick Collison, and Robert Morris
+for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/founders.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+
+
+Want to start a startup?  Get funded by
+Y Combinator.
+
+
+
+
+October 2010
+
+(I wrote this for Forbes, who asked me to write something
+about the qualities we look for in founders.  In print they had to cut
+the last item because they didn't have room.)1. DeterminationThis has turned out to be the most important quality in startup
+founders.  We thought when we started Y Combinator that the most
+important quality would be intelligence.  That's the myth in the
+Valley. And certainly you don't want founders to be stupid.  But
+as long as you're over a certain threshold of intelligence, what
+matters most is determination.  You're going to hit a lot of
+obstacles.  You can't be the sort of person who gets demoralized
+easily.Bill Clerico and Rich Aberman of WePay 
+are a good example.  They're
+doing a finance startup, which means endless negotiations with big,
+bureaucratic companies.  When you're starting a startup that depends
+on deals with big companies to exist, it often feels like they're
+trying to ignore you out of existence.  But when Bill Clerico starts
+calling you, you may as well do what he asks, because he is not
+going away.
+2. FlexibilityYou do not however want the sort of determination implied by phrases
+like "don't give up on your dreams."  The world of startups is so
+unpredictable that you need to be able to modify your dreams on the
+fly.  The best metaphor I've found for the combination of determination
+and flexibility you need is a running back.  
+He's determined to get
+downfield, but at any given moment he may need to go sideways or
+even backwards to get there.The current record holder for flexibility may be Daniel Gross of
+Greplin.  He applied to YC with 
+some bad ecommerce idea.  We told
+him we'd fund him if he did something else.  He thought for a second,
+and said ok.  He then went through two more ideas before settling
+on Greplin.  He'd only been working on it for a couple days when
+he presented to investors at Demo Day, but he got a lot of interest.
+He always seems to land on his feet.
+3. ImaginationIntelligence does matter a lot of course.  It seems like the type
+that matters most is imagination.  It's not so important to be able
+to solve predefined problems quickly as to be able to come up with
+surprising new ideas.  In the startup world, most good ideas 
+seem
+bad initially.  If they were obviously good, someone would already
+be doing them.  So you need the kind of intelligence that produces
+ideas with just the right level of craziness.Airbnb is that kind of idea.  
+In fact, when we funded Airbnb, we
+thought it was too crazy.  We couldn't believe large numbers of
+people would want to stay in other people's places.  We funded them
+because we liked the founders so much.  As soon as we heard they'd
+been supporting themselves by selling Obama and McCain branded
+breakfast cereal, they were in.  And it turned out the idea was on
+the right side of crazy after all.
+4. NaughtinessThough the most successful founders are usually good people, they
+tend to have a piratical gleam in their eye.  They're not Goody
+Two-Shoes type good.  Morally, they care about getting the big
+questions right, but not about observing proprieties.  That's why
+I'd use the word naughty rather than evil.  They delight in 
+breaking
+rules, but not rules that matter.  This quality may be redundant
+though; it may be implied by imagination.Sam Altman of Loopt 
+is one of the most successful alumni, so we
+asked him what question we could put on the Y Combinator application
+that would help us discover more people like him.  He said to ask
+about a time when they'd hacked something to their advantage—hacked in the sense of beating the system, not breaking into
+computers.  It has become one of the questions we pay most attention
+to when judging applications.
+5. FriendshipEmpirically it seems to be hard to start a startup with just 
+one
+founder.  Most of the big successes have two or three.  And the
+relationship between the founders has to be strong.  They must
+genuinely like one another, and work well together.  Startups do
+to the relationship between the founders what a dog does to a sock:
+if it can be pulled apart, it will be.Emmett Shear and Justin Kan of Justin.tv 
+are a good example of close
+friends who work well together.  They've known each other since
+second grade.  They can practically read one another's minds.  I'm
+sure they argue, like all founders, but I have never once sensed
+any unresolved tension between them.Thanks to Jessica Livingston and Chris Steiner for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/foundervisa.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+
+
+April 2009I usually avoid politics, but since we now seem to have an administration that's open to suggestions, I'm going to risk making one.  The single biggest thing the government could do to increase the number of startups in this country is a policy that would cost nothing: establish a new class of visa for startup founders.The biggest constraint on the number of new startups that get created in the US is not tax policy or employment law or even Sarbanes-Oxley.  It's that we won't let the people who want to start them into the country.Letting just 10,000 startup founders into the country each year could have a visible effect on the economy.  If we assume 4 people per startup, which is probably an overestimate, that's 2500 new companies.  Each year.  They wouldn't all grow as big as Google, but out of 2500 some would come close.By definition these 10,000 founders wouldn't be taking jobs from Americans: it could be part of the terms of the visa that they couldn't work for existing companies, only new ones they'd founded.  In fact they'd cause there to be 
+more jobs for Americans, because the companies they started would hire more employees as they grew.The tricky part might seem to be how one defined a startup. But that could be solved quite easily: let the market decide.  Startup investors work hard to find the best startups.  The government could not do better than to piggyback on their expertise, and use investment by recognized startup investors as the test of whether a company was a real startup.How would the government decide who's a startup investor?  The same way they decide what counts as a university for student visas. We'll establish our own accreditation procedure. We know who one another are.10,000 people is a drop in the bucket by immigration standards, but would represent a huge increase in the pool of startup founders.  I think this would have such a visible effect on the economy that it would make the legislator who introduced the bill famous.  The only way to know for sure would be to try it, and that would cost practically nothing.
+Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Paul Buchheit, Jeff Clavier, David Hornik, Jessica Livingston, Greg Mcadoo, Aydin Senkut, and Fred Wilson for reading drafts of this.Related:

PaulGrahamEssays/gap.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,485 @@
+May 2004When people care enough about something to do it well, those who
+do it best tend to be far better than everyone else.  There's a
+huge gap between Leonardo and second-rate contemporaries like
+Borgognone.  You see the same gap between Raymond Chandler and the
+average writer of detective novels.  A top-ranked professional chess
+player could play ten thousand games against an ordinary club player
+without losing once.Like chess or painting or writing novels, making money is a very
+specialized skill.   But for some reason we treat this skill
+differently.  No one complains when a few people surpass all the
+rest at playing chess or writing novels, but when a few people make
+more money than the rest, we get editorials saying this is wrong.Why?  The pattern of variation seems no different than for any other
+skill.  What causes people to react so strongly when the skill is
+making money?I think there are three reasons we treat making money as different:
+the misleading model of wealth we learn as children; the disreputable
+way in which, till recently, most fortunes were accumulated; and
+the worry that great variations in income are somehow bad for
+society.  As far as I can tell, the first is mistaken, the second
+outdated, and the third empirically false.  Could it be that, in a
+modern democracy, variation in income is actually a sign of health?The Daddy Model of WealthWhen I was five I thought electricity was created by electric
+sockets.  I didn't realize there were power plants out there
+generating it.  Likewise, it doesn't occur to most kids that wealth
+is something that has to be generated.  It seems to be something
+that flows from parents.Because of the circumstances in which they encounter it, children
+tend to misunderstand wealth.  They confuse it with money.  They
+think that there is a fixed amount of it.  And they think of it as
+something that's distributed by authorities (and so should be
+distributed equally), rather than something that has to be created
+(and might be created unequally).In fact, wealth is not money.  Money is just a convenient way of
+trading one form of wealth for another.  Wealth is the underlying
+stuff—the goods and services we buy.  When you travel to a
+rich or poor country, you don't have to look at people's bank
+accounts to tell which kind you're in.  You can see
+wealth—in buildings and streets, in the clothes and the health
+of the people.Where does wealth come from?  People make it.  This was easier to
+grasp when most people lived on farms, and made many of the things
+they wanted with their own hands.  Then you could see in the house,
+the herds, and the granary the wealth that each family created.  It
+was obvious then too that the wealth of the world was not a fixed
+quantity that had to be shared out, like slices of a pie.  If you
+wanted more wealth, you could make it.This is just as true today, though few of us create wealth directly
+for ourselves (except for a few vestigial domestic tasks).  Mostly
+we create wealth for other people in exchange for money, which we
+then trade for the forms of wealth we want. 
+[1]Because kids are unable to create wealth, whatever they have has
+to be given to them.  And when wealth is something you're given,
+then of course it seems that it should be distributed equally.
+[2]
+As in most families it is.  The kids see to that.  "Unfair," they
+cry, when one sibling gets more than another.In the real world, you can't keep living off your parents.  If you
+want something, you either have to make it, or do something of
+equivalent value for someone else, in order to get them to give you
+enough money to buy it.  In the real world, wealth is (except for
+a few specialists like thieves and speculators) something you have
+to create, not something that's distributed by Daddy.  And since
+the ability and desire to create it vary from person to person,
+it's not made equally.You get paid by doing or making something people want, and those
+who make more money are often simply better at doing what people
+want.  Top actors make a lot more money than B-list actors.  The
+B-list actors might be almost as charismatic, but when people go
+to the theater and look at the list of movies playing, they want
+that extra oomph that the big stars have.Doing what people want is not the only way to get money, of course.
+You could also rob banks, or solicit bribes, or establish a monopoly.
+Such tricks account for some variation in wealth, and indeed for
+some of the biggest individual fortunes, but they are not the root
+cause of variation in income.  The root cause of variation in income,
+as Occam's Razor implies, is the same as the root cause of variation
+in every other human skill.In the United States, the CEO of a large public company makes about
+100 times as much as the average person. 
+[3]
+Basketball players
+make about 128 times as much, and baseball players 72 times as much.
+Editorials quote this kind of statistic with horror.  But I have
+no trouble imagining that one person could be 100 times as productive
+as another.  In ancient Rome the price of slaves varied by
+a factor of 50 depending on their skills. 
+[4]
+And that's without
+considering motivation, or the extra leverage in productivity that
+you can get from modern technology.Editorials about athletes' or CEOs' salaries remind me of early
+Christian writers, arguing from first principles about whether the
+Earth was round, when they could just walk outside and check.
+[5]
+How much someone's work is worth is not a policy question.  It's
+something the market already determines."Are they really worth 100 of us?" editorialists ask.  Depends on
+what you mean by worth.  If you mean worth in the sense of what
+people will pay for their skills, the answer is yes, apparently.A few CEOs' incomes reflect some kind of wrongdoing.  But are there
+not others whose incomes really do reflect the wealth they generate?
+Steve Jobs saved a company that was in a terminal decline.  And not
+merely in the way a turnaround specialist does, by cutting costs;
+he had to decide what Apple's next products should be.  Few others
+could have done it.  And regardless of the case with CEOs, it's
+hard to see how anyone could argue that the salaries of professional
+basketball players don't reflect supply and demand.It may seem unlikely in principle that one individual could really
+generate so much more wealth than another.  The key to this mystery
+is to revisit that question, are they really worth 100 of us?
+Would a basketball team trade one of their players for 100
+random people?  What would Apple's next product look like if you
+replaced Steve Jobs with a committee of 100 random people? 
+[6]
+These
+things don't scale linearly.  Perhaps the CEO or the professional
+athlete has only ten times (whatever that means) the skill and
+determination of an ordinary person.  But it makes all the difference
+that it's concentrated in one individual.When we say that one kind of work is overpaid and another underpaid,
+what are we really saying?  In a free market, prices are determined
+by what buyers want.  People like baseball more than  poetry, so
+baseball players make more than poets.  To say that a certain kind
+of work is underpaid is thus identical with saying that people want
+the wrong things.Well, of course people want the wrong things.  It seems odd to be
+surprised by that.  And it seems even odder to say that it's
+unjust that certain kinds of work are underpaid. 
+[7]
+Then
+you're saying that it's unjust that people want the wrong things.
+It's  lamentable that people prefer reality TV and corndogs to
+Shakespeare and steamed vegetables, but unjust?  That seems like
+saying that blue is heavy, or that up is circular.The appearance of the word "unjust" here is the unmistakable spectral
+signature of the Daddy Model.  Why else would this idea occur in
+this odd context?  Whereas if the speaker were still operating on
+the Daddy Model, and saw wealth as something that flowed from a
+common source and had to be shared out, rather than something
+generated by doing what other people wanted, this is exactly what
+you'd get on noticing that some people made much more than others.When we talk about "unequal distribution of income," we should
+also ask, where does that income come from?
+[8]
+Who made the wealth
+it represents?  Because to the extent that income varies simply
+according to how much wealth people create, the distribution may
+be unequal, but it's hardly unjust.Stealing ItThe second reason we tend to find great disparities of wealth
+alarming is that for most of human history the usual way to accumulate
+a fortune was to steal it: in pastoral societies by cattle raiding;
+in agricultural societies by appropriating others' estates in times
+of war, and taxing them in times of peace.In conflicts, those on the winning side would receive the estates
+confiscated from the losers.  In England in the 1060s, when William
+the Conqueror distributed the estates of the defeated Anglo-Saxon
+nobles to his followers, the conflict was military.  By the 1530s,
+when Henry VIII distributed the estates of the monasteries to his
+followers, it was mostly political. 
+[9]
+But the principle was the
+same.  Indeed, the same principle is at work now in Zimbabwe.In more organized societies, like China, the ruler and his officials
+used taxation instead of confiscation.  But here too we see the
+same principle: the way to get rich was not to create wealth, but
+to serve a ruler powerful enough to appropriate it.This started to change in Europe with the rise of the middle class.
+Now we think of the middle class as people who are neither rich nor
+poor, but originally they were a distinct group.  In a feudal
+society, there are just two classes: a warrior aristocracy, and the
+serfs who work their estates.  The middle class were a new, third
+group who lived in towns and supported themselves by manufacturing
+and trade.Starting in the tenth and eleventh centuries, petty nobles and
+former serfs banded together in towns that gradually became powerful
+enough to ignore the local feudal lords. 
+[10]
+Like serfs, the middle
+class made a living largely by creating wealth.  (In port cities
+like Genoa and Pisa, they also engaged in piracy.) But unlike serfs
+they had an incentive to create a lot of it.  Any wealth a serf
+created belonged to his master.  There was not much point in making
+more than you could hide.  Whereas the independence of the townsmen
+allowed them to keep whatever wealth they created.Once it became possible to get rich by creating wealth, society as
+a whole started to get richer very rapidly.  Nearly everything we
+have was created by the middle class.  Indeed, the other two classes
+have effectively disappeared in industrial societies, and their
+names been given to either end of the middle class.  (In the original
+sense of the word, Bill Gates is middle class.)But it was not till the Industrial Revolution that wealth creation
+definitively replaced corruption as the best way to get rich.  In
+England, at least, corruption only became unfashionable (and in
+fact only started to be called "corruption") when there started to
+be other, faster ways to get rich.Seventeenth-century England was much like the third world today,
+in that government office was a recognized route to wealth.  The
+great fortunes of that time still derived more from what we would
+now call corruption than from commerce. 
+[11]
+By the nineteenth
+century that had changed.  There continued to be bribes, as there
+still are everywhere, but politics had by then been left to men who
+were driven more by vanity than greed.  Technology had made it
+possible to create wealth faster than you could steal it.  The
+prototypical rich man of the nineteenth century was not a courtier
+but an industrialist.With the rise of the middle class, wealth stopped being a zero-sum
+game.  Jobs and Wozniak didn't have to make us poor to make themselves
+rich.  Quite the opposite: they created things that made our lives
+materially richer.  They had to, or we wouldn't have paid for them.But since for most of the world's history the main route to wealth
+was to steal it, we tend to be suspicious of rich people.  Idealistic
+undergraduates find their unconsciously preserved child's model of
+wealth confirmed by eminent writers of the past.  It is a case of
+the mistaken meeting the outdated."Behind every great fortune, there is a crime," Balzac wrote.  Except
+he didn't.  What he actually said was that a great fortune with no
+apparent cause was probably due to a crime well enough executed
+that it had been forgotten.  If we were talking about Europe in
+1000, or most of the third world today, the standard misquotation
+would be spot on.  But Balzac lived in nineteenth-century France,
+where the Industrial Revolution was well advanced.  He knew you
+could make a fortune without stealing it.  After all, he did himself,
+as a popular novelist.
+[12]Only a few countries (by no coincidence, the richest ones) have
+reached this stage.  In most, corruption still has the upper hand.
+In most, the fastest way to get wealth is by stealing it.  And so
+when we see increasing differences in income in a rich country,
+there is a tendency to worry that it's sliding back toward becoming
+another Venezuela.  I think the opposite is happening. I think
+you're seeing a country a full step ahead of Venezuela.The Lever of TechnologyWill technology increase the gap between rich and poor?  It will
+certainly increase the gap between the productive and the unproductive.
+That's the whole point of technology.   With a tractor an energetic
+farmer could plow six times as much land in a day as he could with
+a team of horses.  But only if he mastered a new kind of farming.I've seen the lever of technology grow visibly in my own time.  In
+high school I made money by mowing lawns and scooping ice cream at
+Baskin-Robbins.  This was the only kind of work available at the
+time.  Now high school kids could write software or design web
+sites.  But only some of them will; the rest will still be scooping
+ice cream.I remember very vividly when in 1985 improved technology made it
+possible for me to buy a computer of my own.  Within months I was
+using it to make money as a freelance programmer.  A few years
+before, I couldn't have done this.  A few years before, there was
+no such thing as a freelance programmer.  But Apple created
+wealth, in the form of powerful, inexpensive computers, and programmers
+immediately set to work using it to create more.As this example suggests, the rate at which technology increases
+our productive capacity is probably exponential, rather than linear.
+So we should expect to see ever-increasing variation in individual
+productivity as time goes on.   Will that increase the gap between
+rich and the poor?  Depends which gap you mean.Technology should increase the gap in income, but it seems to
+decrease other gaps.  A hundred years ago, the rich led a different
+kind of life from ordinary people.  They lived in houses
+full of servants, wore elaborately uncomfortable clothes, and
+travelled about in carriages drawn by teams of horses which themselves
+required their own houses and servants.  Now, thanks to technology,
+the rich live more like the average person.Cars are a good example of why.  It's possible to buy expensive,
+handmade cars that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.  But there
+is not much point.  Companies make more money by building a large
+number of ordinary cars than a small number of expensive ones.  So
+a company making a mass-produced car can afford to spend a lot more
+on its design.  If you buy a custom-made car, something will always
+be breaking.  The only point of buying one now is to advertise that
+you can.Or consider watches.  Fifty years ago, by spending a lot of money
+on a watch you could get better performance.  When watches had
+mechanical movements, expensive watches kept better time.  Not any
+more.  Since the invention of the quartz movement, an ordinary Timex
+is more accurate than a Patek Philippe costing hundreds of thousands
+of dollars.
+[13]
+Indeed, as with expensive cars, if you're determined
+to spend a lot of money on a watch, you have to put up with some
+inconvenience to do it: as well as keeping worse time, mechanical
+watches have to be wound.The only thing technology can't cheapen is brand.  Which is precisely
+why we hear ever more about it.  Brand is the residue left as the
+substantive differences between rich and poor evaporate.  But what
+label you have on your stuff is a much smaller matter than having
+it versus not having it.  In 1900, if you kept a carriage, no one
+asked what year or brand it was.  If you had one, you were rich.
+And if you weren't rich, you took the omnibus or walked.  Now even
+the poorest Americans drive cars, and it is only because we're so
+well trained by advertising that we can even recognize the especially
+expensive ones.
+[14]The same pattern has played out in industry after industry.  If
+there is enough demand for something, technology will make it cheap
+enough to sell in large volumes, and the mass-produced versions
+will be, if not better, at least more convenient.
+[15]
+And there
+is nothing the rich like more than convenience.  The rich people I
+know drive the same cars, wear the same clothes, have the same kind
+of furniture, and eat the same foods as my other friends.  Their
+houses are in different neighborhoods, or if in the same neighborhood
+are different sizes, but within them life is similar.  The houses
+are made using the same construction techniques and contain much
+the same objects.  It's inconvenient to do something expensive and
+custom.The rich spend their time more like everyone else too.  Bertie
+Wooster seems long gone.  Now, most people who are rich enough not
+to work do anyway.  It's not just social pressure that makes them;
+idleness is lonely and demoralizing.Nor do we have the social distinctions there were a hundred years
+ago.   The novels and etiquette manuals of that period read now
+like descriptions of some strange tribal society.  "With respect
+to the continuance of friendships..." hints Mrs. Beeton's Book
+of Household Management (1880), "it may be found necessary, in
+some cases, for a mistress to relinquish, on assuming the responsibility
+of a household, many of those commenced in the earlier part of her
+life." A woman who married a rich man was expected to drop friends
+who didn't.  You'd seem a barbarian if you behaved that way today.
+You'd also have a very boring life.  People still tend to segregate
+themselves somewhat, but much more on the basis of education than
+wealth.
+[16]Materially and socially, technology seems to be decreasing the gap
+between the rich and the poor, not increasing it.  If Lenin walked
+around the offices of a company like Yahoo or Intel or Cisco, he'd
+think communism had won.  Everyone would be wearing the same clothes,
+have the same kind of office (or rather, cubicle) with the same
+furnishings, and address one another by their first names instead
+of by honorifics.  Everything would seem exactly as he'd predicted,
+until he looked at their bank accounts.  Oops.Is it a problem if technology increases that gap?  It doesn't seem
+to be so far.  As it increases the gap in income, it seems to
+decrease most other gaps.Alternative to an AxiomOne often hears a policy criticized on the grounds that it would
+increase the income gap between rich and poor.  As if it were an
+axiom that this would be bad.  It might be true that increased
+variation in income would be bad, but I don't see how we can say
+it's axiomatic.Indeed, it may even be false, in industrial democracies.  In a
+society of serfs and warlords, certainly, variation in income is a
+sign of an underlying problem.  But serfdom is not the only cause
+of variation in income.  A 747 pilot doesn't make 40 times as much
+as a checkout clerk because he is a warlord who somehow holds her
+in thrall.  His skills are simply much more valuable.I'd like to propose an alternative idea: that in a modern society,
+increasing variation in income is a sign of health.  Technology
+seems to increase the variation in productivity at faster than
+linear rates.  If we don't see corresponding variation in income,
+there are three possible explanations: (a) that technical innovation
+has stopped, (b) that the people who would create the most wealth
+aren't doing it, or (c) that they aren't getting paid for it.I think we can safely say that (a) and (b) would be bad.  If you
+disagree, try living for a year using only the resources available
+to the average Frankish nobleman in 800, and report back to us.
+(I'll be generous and not send you back to the stone age.)The only option, if you're going to have an increasingly prosperous
+society without increasing variation in income, seems to be (c),
+that people will create a lot of wealth without being paid for it.
+That Jobs and Wozniak, for example, will cheerfully work 20-hour
+days to produce the Apple computer for a society that allows them,
+after taxes, to keep just enough of their income to match what they
+would have made working 9 to 5 at a big company.Will people create wealth if they can't get paid for it?  Only if
+it's fun.  People will write operating systems for free.  But they
+won't install them, or take support calls, or train customers to
+use them.  And at least 90% of the work that even the highest tech
+companies do is of this second, unedifying kind.All the unfun kinds of wealth creation slow dramatically in a society
+that confiscates private fortunes.  We can confirm this empirically.
+Suppose you hear a strange noise that you think may be due to a
+nearby fan.  You turn the fan off, and the noise stops.  You turn
+the fan back on, and the noise starts again.  Off, quiet.  On,
+noise.  In the absence of other information, it would seem the noise
+is caused by the fan.At various times and places in history, whether you could accumulate
+a fortune by creating wealth has been turned on and off.  Northern
+Italy in 800, off (warlords would steal it).  Northern Italy in
+1100, on.  Central France in 1100, off (still feudal).  England in
+1800, on.  England in 1974, off (98% tax on investment income).
+United States in 1974, on.  We've even had a twin study: West
+Germany, on;  East Germany, off.  In every case, the creation of
+wealth seems to appear and disappear like the noise of a fan as you
+switch on and off the prospect of keeping it.There is some momentum involved.  It probably takes at least a
+generation to turn people into East Germans (luckily for England).
+But if it were merely a fan we were studying, without all the extra
+baggage that comes from the controversial topic of wealth, no one
+would have any doubt that the fan was causing the noise.If you suppress variations in income, whether by stealing private
+fortunes, as feudal rulers used to do, or by taxing them away, as
+some modern governments have done, the result always seems to be
+the same.    Society as a whole ends up poorer.If I had a choice of living in a society where I was materially
+much better off than I am now, but was among the poorest, or in one
+where I was the richest, but much worse off than I am now, I'd take
+the first option.  If I had children, it would arguably be immoral
+not to.  It's absolute poverty you want to avoid, not relative
+poverty.  If, as the evidence so far implies, you have to have one
+or the other in your society, take relative poverty.You need rich people in your society not so much because in spending
+their money they create jobs, but because of what they have to do
+to get rich.  I'm not talking about the trickle-down effect
+here.  I'm not saying that if you let Henry Ford get rich, he'll
+hire you as a waiter at his next party.  I'm saying that he'll make
+you a tractor to replace your horse.Notes[1]
+Part of the reason this subject is so contentious is that some
+of those most vocal on the subject of wealth—university
+students, heirs, professors, politicians, and journalists—have
+the least experience creating it.  (This phenomenon will be familiar
+to anyone who has overheard conversations about sports in a bar.)Students are mostly still on the parental dole, and have not stopped
+to think about where that money comes from.  Heirs will be on the
+parental dole for life.  Professors and politicians live within
+socialist eddies of the economy, at one remove from the creation
+of wealth, and are paid a flat rate regardless of how hard they
+work.  And journalists as part of their professional code segregate
+themselves from the revenue-collecting half of the businesses they
+work for (the ad sales department).  Many of these people never
+come face to face with the fact that the money they receive represents
+wealth—wealth that, except in the case of journalists, someone
+else created earlier.  They live in a world in which income is
+doled out by a central authority according to some abstract notion
+of fairness (or randomly, in the case of heirs), rather than given
+by other people in return for something they wanted, so it may seem
+to them unfair that things don't work the same in the rest of the
+economy.(Some professors do create a great deal of wealth for
+society.  But the money they're paid isn't a quid pro quo.
+It's more in the nature of an investment.)[2]
+When one reads about the origins of the Fabian Society, it
+sounds like something cooked up by the high-minded Edwardian
+child-heroes of Edith Nesbit's The Wouldbegoods.[3]
+According to a study by the Corporate Library, the median total
+compensation, including salary, bonus, stock grants, and the exercise
+of stock options, of S&P 500 CEOs in 2002 was $3.65 million.
+According to Sports Illustrated, the average NBA player's
+salary during the 2002-03 season was $4.54 million, and the average
+major league baseball player's salary at the start of the 2003
+season was $2.56 million.  According to the Bureau of Labor
+Statistics, the mean annual wage in the US in 2002 was $35,560.[4]
+In the early empire the price of an ordinary adult slave seems
+to have been about 2,000 sestertii (e.g. Horace, Sat. ii.7.43).
+A servant girl cost 600 (Martial vi.66), while Columella (iii.3.8)
+says that a skilled vine-dresser was worth 8,000.  A doctor, P.
+Decimus Eros Merula, paid 50,000 sestertii for his freedom (Dessau,
+Inscriptiones 7812).  Seneca (Ep. xxvii.7) reports
+that one Calvisius Sabinus paid 100,000 sestertii apiece for slaves
+learned in the Greek classics.  Pliny (Hist. Nat. vii.39)
+says that the highest price paid for a slave up to his time was
+700,000 sestertii, for the linguist (and presumably teacher) Daphnis,
+but that this had since been exceeded by actors buying their own
+freedom.Classical Athens saw a similar variation in prices.  An ordinary
+laborer was worth about 125 to 150 drachmae.  Xenophon (Mem.
+ii.5) mentions prices ranging from 50 to 6,000 drachmae (for the
+manager of a silver mine).For more on the economics of ancient slavery see:Jones, A. H. M., "Slavery in the Ancient World," Economic History
+Review, 2:9 (1956), 185-199, reprinted in Finley, M. I. (ed.),
+Slavery in Classical Antiquity, Heffer, 1964.[5]
+Eratosthenes (276—195 BC) used shadow lengths in different
+cities to estimate the Earth's circumference.  He was off by only
+about 2%.[6]
+No, and Windows, respectively.[7]
+One of the biggest divergences between the Daddy Model and
+reality is the valuation of hard work.  In the Daddy Model, hard
+work is in itself deserving.  In reality, wealth is measured by
+what one delivers, not how much effort it costs.  If I paint someone's
+house, the owner shouldn't pay me extra for doing it with a toothbrush.It will seem to someone still implicitly operating on the Daddy
+Model that it is unfair when someone works hard and doesn't get
+paid much.  To help clarify the matter, get rid of everyone else
+and put our worker on a desert island, hunting and gathering fruit.
+If he's bad at it he'll work very hard and not end up with much
+food.  Is this unfair?  Who is being unfair to him?[8]
+Part of the reason for the tenacity of the Daddy Model may be
+the dual meaning of "distribution." When economists talk about
+"distribution of income," they mean statistical distribution.  But
+when you use the phrase frequently, you can't help associating it
+with the other sense of the word (as in e.g. "distribution of alms"),
+and thereby subconsciously seeing wealth as something that flows
+from some central tap.  The word "regressive" as applied to tax
+rates has a similar effect, at least on me; how can anything
+regressive be good?[9]
+"From the beginning of the reign Thomas Lord Roos was an assiduous
+courtier of the young Henry VIII and was soon to reap the rewards.
+In 1525 he was made a Knight of the Garter and given the Earldom
+of Rutland.  In the thirties his support of the breach with Rome,
+his zeal in crushing the Pilgrimage of Grace, and his readiness to
+vote the death-penalty in the succession of spectacular treason
+trials that punctuated Henry's erratic matrimonial progress made
+him an obvious candidate for grants of monastic property."Stone, Lawrence, Family and Fortune: Studies in Aristocratic
+Finance in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, Oxford
+University Press, 1973, p. 166.[10]
+There is archaeological evidence for large settlements earlier,
+but it's hard to say what was happening in them.Hodges, Richard and David Whitehouse, Mohammed, Charlemagne and
+the Origins of Europe, Cornell University Press, 1983.[11]
+William Cecil and his son Robert were each in turn the most
+powerful minister of the crown, and both used their position to
+amass fortunes among the largest of their times.  Robert in particular
+took bribery to the point of treason.  "As Secretary of State and
+the leading advisor to King James on foreign policy, [he] was a
+special recipient of favour, being offered large bribes by the Dutch
+not to make peace with Spain, and large bribes by Spain to make
+peace." (Stone, op. cit., p. 17.)[12]
+Though Balzac made a lot of money from writing, he was notoriously
+improvident and was troubled by debts all his life.[13]
+A Timex will gain or lose about .5 seconds per day.  The most
+accurate mechanical watch, the Patek Philippe 10 Day Tourbillon,
+is rated at -1.5 to +2 seconds.  Its retail price is about $220,000.[14]
+If asked to choose which was more expensive, a well-preserved
+1989 Lincoln Town Car ten-passenger limousine ($5,000) or a 2004
+Mercedes S600 sedan ($122,000), the average Edwardian might well
+guess wrong.[15]
+To say anything meaningful about income trends, you have to
+talk about real income, or income as measured in what it can buy.
+But the usual way of calculating real income ignores much of the
+growth in wealth over time, because it depends on a consumer price
+index created by bolting end to end a series of numbers that are
+only locally accurate, and that don't include the prices of new
+inventions until they become so common that their prices stabilize.So while we might think it was very much better to live in a world
+with antibiotics or air travel or an electric power grid than
+without, real income statistics calculated in the usual way will
+prove to us that we are only slightly richer for having these things.Another approach would be to ask, if you were going back to the
+year x in a time machine, how much would you have to spend on trade
+goods to make your fortune?  For example, if you were going back
+to 1970 it would certainly be less than $500, because the processing
+power you can get for $500 today would have been worth at least
+$150 million in 1970.  The function goes asymptotic fairly quickly,
+because for times over a hundred years or so you could get all you
+needed in present-day trash.  In 1800 an empty plastic drink bottle
+with a screw top would have seemed a miracle of workmanship.[16]
+Some will say this amounts to the same thing, because the rich
+have better opportunities for education.  That's a valid point.  It
+is still possible, to a degree, to buy your kids' way into top
+colleges by sending them to private schools that in effect hack the
+college admissions process.According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Education
+Statistics, about 1.7% of American kids attend private, non-sectarian
+schools.  At Princeton, 36% of the class of 2007 came from such
+schools.  (Interestingly, the number at Harvard is significantly
+lower, about 28%.)  Obviously this is a huge loophole.  It does at
+least seem to be closing, not widening.Perhaps the designers of admissions processes should take a lesson
+from the example of computer security, and instead of just assuming
+that their system can't be hacked, measure the degree to which it
+is.

PaulGrahamEssays/gba.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
+April 2004To the popular press, "hacker" means someone who breaks
+into computers.  Among programmers it means a good programmer.
+But the two meanings are connected.  To programmers,
+"hacker" connotes mastery in the most literal sense: someone
+who can make a computer do what he wants—whether the computer
+wants to or not.To add to the confusion, the noun "hack" also has two senses.  It can
+be either a compliment or an insult.  It's called a hack when
+you do something in an ugly way.  But when you do something
+so clever that you somehow beat the system, that's also
+called a hack.  The word is used more often in the former than
+the latter sense, probably because ugly solutions are more
+common than brilliant ones.Believe it or not, the two senses of "hack" are also
+connected.  Ugly and imaginative solutions have something in
+common: they both break the rules.  And there is a gradual
+continuum between rule breaking that's merely ugly (using
+duct tape to attach something to your bike) and rule breaking
+that is brilliantly imaginative (discarding Euclidean space).Hacking predates computers.  When he
+was working on the Manhattan Project, Richard Feynman used to
+amuse himself by breaking into safes containing secret documents.
+This tradition continues today.
+When we were in grad school, a hacker friend of mine who spent too much
+time around MIT had
+his own lock picking kit.
+(He now runs a hedge fund, a not unrelated enterprise.)It is sometimes hard to explain to authorities why one would
+want to do such things.
+Another friend of mine once got in trouble with the government for
+breaking into computers.  This had only recently been declared
+a crime, and the FBI found that their usual investigative
+technique didn't work.  Police investigation apparently begins with
+a motive.  The usual motives are few: drugs, money, sex,
+revenge.  Intellectual curiosity was not one of the motives on
+the FBI's list.  Indeed, the whole concept seemed foreign to
+them.Those in authority tend to be annoyed by hackers'
+general attitude of disobedience.  But that disobedience is
+a byproduct of the qualities that make them good programmers.
+They may laugh at the CEO when he talks in generic corporate
+newspeech, but they also laugh at someone who tells them
+a certain problem can't be solved.
+Suppress one, and you suppress the other.This attitude is sometimes affected.  Sometimes young programmers
+notice the eccentricities of eminent hackers and decide to
+adopt some of their own in order to seem smarter.
+The fake version is not merely
+annoying; the prickly attitude of these posers
+can actually slow the process of innovation.But even factoring in their annoying eccentricities,
+the disobedient attitude of hackers is a net win.  I wish its
+advantages were better understood.For example, I suspect people in Hollywood are
+simply mystified by
+hackers' attitudes toward copyrights.  They are a perennial
+topic of heated discussion on Slashdot.
+But why should people who program computers
+be so concerned about copyrights, of all things?Partly because some companies use mechanisms to prevent
+copying.  Show any hacker a lock and his first thought is
+how to pick it.  But there is a deeper reason that
+hackers are alarmed by measures like copyrights and patents.
+They see increasingly aggressive measures to protect
+"intellectual property"
+as a threat to the intellectual
+freedom they need to do their job.
+And they are right.It is by poking about inside current technology that
+hackers get ideas for the next generation.  No thanks,
+intellectual homeowners may say, we don't need any
+outside help.  But they're wrong.
+The next generation of computer technology has
+often—perhaps more often than not—been developed by outsiders.In 1977 there was no doubt some group within IBM developing
+what they expected to be
+the next generation of business computer.  They were mistaken.
+The next generation of business computer was
+being developed on entirely different lines by two long-haired
+guys called Steve in a garage in Los Altos.  At about the
+same time, the powers that be
+were cooperating to develop the
+official next generation operating system, Multics.
+But two guys who thought Multics excessively complex went off
+and wrote their own.  They gave it a name that
+was a joking reference to Multics: Unix.The latest intellectual property laws impose
+unprecedented restrictions on the sort of poking around that
+leads to new ideas. In the past, a competitor might use patents
+to prevent you from selling a copy of something they
+made, but they couldn't prevent you from
+taking one apart to see how it worked.   The latest
+laws make this a crime.  How are we
+to develop new technology if we can't study current
+technology to figure out how to improve it?Ironically, hackers have brought this on themselves.
+Computers are responsible for the problem.  The control systems
+inside machines used to be physical: gears and levers and cams.
+Increasingly, the brains (and thus the value) of products is
+in software. And by this I mean software in the general sense:
+i.e. data.  A song on an LP is physically stamped into the
+plastic.  A song on an iPod's disk is merely stored on it.Data is by definition easy to copy.  And the Internet
+makes copies easy to distribute.  So it is no wonder
+companies are afraid.  But, as so often happens, fear has
+clouded their judgement.  The government has responded
+with draconian laws to protect intellectual property.
+They probably mean well. But
+they may not realize that such laws will do more harm
+than good.Why are programmers so violently opposed to these laws?
+If I were a legislator, I'd be interested in this
+mystery—for the same reason that, if I were a farmer and suddenly
+heard a lot of squawking coming from my hen house one night,
+I'd want to go out and investigate.  Hackers are not stupid,
+and unanimity is very rare in this world.
+So if they're all squawking,   
+perhaps there is something amiss.Could it be that such laws, though intended to protect America,
+will actually harm it?  Think about it.  There is something
+very American about Feynman breaking into safes during
+the Manhattan Project.  It's hard to imagine the authorities
+having a sense of humor about such things over
+in Germany at that time.  Maybe it's not a coincidence.Hackers are unruly.  That is the essence of hacking.  And it
+is also the essence of Americanness.  It is no accident
+that Silicon Valley
+is in America, and not France, or Germany,
+or England, or Japan. In those countries, people color inside
+the lines.I lived for a while in Florence.  But after I'd been there
+a few months I realized that what I'd been unconsciously hoping
+to find there was back in the place I'd just left.
+The reason Florence is famous is that in 1450, it was New York.
+In 1450 it was filled with the kind of turbulent and ambitious
+people you find now in America.  (So I went back to America.)It is greatly to America's advantage that it is
+a congenial atmosphere for the right sort of unruliness—that
+it is a home not just for the smart, but for smart-alecks.
+And hackers are invariably smart-alecks.  If we had a national
+holiday, it would be April 1st.  It says a great deal about
+our work that we use the same word for a brilliant or a
+horribly cheesy solution.   When we cook one up we're not
+always 100% sure which kind it is.  But as long as it has
+the right sort of wrongness, that's a promising sign.
+It's odd that people
+think of programming as precise and methodical.  Computers
+are precise and methodical.  Hacking is something you do
+with a gleeful laugh.In our world some of the most characteristic solutions
+are not far removed from practical
+jokes.  IBM was no doubt rather surprised by the consequences
+of the licensing deal for DOS, just as the hypothetical
+"adversary" must be when Michael Rabin solves a problem by
+redefining it as one that's easier to solve.Smart-alecks have to develop a keen sense of how much they
+can get away with.  And lately hackers 
+have sensed a change
+in the atmosphere.
+Lately hackerliness seems rather frowned upon.To hackers the recent contraction in civil liberties seems
+especially ominous.  That must also mystify outsiders. 
+Why should we care especially about civil
+liberties?  Why programmers, more than
+dentists or salesmen or landscapers?Let me put the case in terms a government official would appreciate.
+Civil liberties are not just an ornament, or a quaint
+American tradition.  Civil liberties make countries rich.
+If you made a graph of
+GNP per capita vs. civil liberties, you'd notice a definite
+trend.  Could civil liberties really be a cause, rather
+than just an effect?  I think so.  I think a society in which
+people can do and say what they want will also tend to
+be one in which the most efficient solutions win, rather than
+those sponsored by the most influential people.
+Authoritarian countries become corrupt;
+corrupt countries become poor; and poor countries are weak. 
+It seems to me there is
+a Laffer curve for government power, just as for
+tax revenues.  At least, it seems likely enough that it
+would be stupid to try the experiment and find out.  Unlike
+high tax rates, you can't repeal totalitarianism if it
+turns out to be a mistake.This is why hackers worry.  The government spying on people doesn't
+literally make programmers write worse code.  It just leads
+eventually to a world in which bad ideas win.  And because
+this is so important to hackers, they're especially sensitive
+to it.  They can sense totalitarianism approaching from a
+distance, as animals can sense an approaching  
+thunderstorm.It would be ironic if, as hackers fear, recent measures
+intended to protect national security and intellectual property
+turned out to be a missile aimed right at what makes   
+America successful.  But it would not be the first time that
+measures taken in an atmosphere of panic had
+the opposite of the intended effect.There is such a thing as Americanness.
+There's nothing like living abroad to teach you that.   
+And if you want to know whether something will nurture or squash
+this quality, it would be hard to find a better focus
+group than hackers, because they come closest of any group
+I know to embodying it.  Closer, probably,  than
+the men running our government,
+who for all their talk of patriotism
+remind me more of Richelieu or Mazarin
+than Thomas Jefferson or George Washington.When you read what the founding fathers had to say for
+themselves, they sound more like hackers.
+"The spirit of resistance to government,"
+Jefferson wrote, "is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish
+it always to be kept alive."Imagine an American president saying that today.
+Like the remarks of an outspoken old grandmother, the sayings of
+the founding fathers have embarrassed generations of
+their less confident successors.  They remind us where we come from.
+They remind us that it is the people who break rules that are
+the source of America's wealth and power.Those in a position to impose rules naturally want them to be
+obeyed.  But be careful what you ask for. You might get it.Thanks to Ken Anderson, Trevor Blackwell, Daniel Giffin, 
+Sarah Harlin,  Shiro Kawai, Jessica Livingston, Matz, 
+Jackie McDonough, Robert Morris, Eric Raymond, Guido van Rossum,
+David Weinberger, and
+Steven Wolfram for reading drafts of this essay.
+(The image shows Steves Jobs and Wozniak 
+with a "blue box."
+Photo by Margret Wozniak. Reproduced by permission of Steve
+Wozniak.)

PaulGrahamEssays/gh.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,434 @@
+
+
+Want to start a startup?  Get funded by
+Y Combinator.
+
+
+
+
+July 2004(This essay is derived from a talk at Oscon 2004.)
+A few months ago I finished a new 
+book, 
+and in reviews I keep
+noticing words like "provocative'' and "controversial.'' To say
+nothing of "idiotic.''I didn't mean to make the book controversial.  I was trying to make
+it efficient.  I didn't want to waste people's time telling them
+things they already knew.  It's more efficient just to give them
+the diffs.  But I suppose that's bound to yield an alarming book.EdisonsThere's no controversy about which idea is most controversial:
+the suggestion that variation in wealth might not be as big a
+problem as we think.I didn't say in the book that variation in wealth was in itself a
+good thing.  I said in some situations it might be a sign of good
+things.  A throbbing headache is not a good thing, but it can be
+a sign of a good thing-- for example, that you're recovering
+consciousness after being hit on the head.Variation in wealth can be a sign of variation in productivity.
+(In a society of one, they're identical.) And that
+is almost certainly a good thing: if your society has no variation
+in productivity, it's probably not because everyone is Thomas
+Edison.  It's probably because you have no Thomas Edisons.In a low-tech society you don't see much variation in productivity.
+If you have a tribe of nomads collecting sticks for a fire, how
+much more productive is the best stick gatherer going to be than
+the worst?  A factor of two?  Whereas when you hand people a complex tool
+like a computer, the variation in what they can do with
+it is enormous.That's not a new idea.  Fred Brooks wrote about it in 1974, and
+the study he quoted was published in 1968.  But I think he
+underestimated the variation between programmers.  He wrote about productivity in lines
+of code:  the best programmers can solve a given problem in a tenth
+the time.  But what if the problem isn't given? In programming, as
+in many fields, the hard part isn't solving problems, but deciding
+what problems to solve.  Imagination is hard to measure, but
+in practice it dominates the kind of productivity that's measured
+in lines of code.Productivity varies in any field, but there are few in which it
+varies so much.  The variation between programmers
+is so great that it becomes a difference in kind.  I don't
+think this is something intrinsic to programming, though.  In every field,
+technology magnifies differences in productivity.  I think what's
+happening in programming is just that we have a lot of technological
+leverage.  But in every field the lever is getting longer, so the
+variation we see is something that more and more fields will see
+as time goes on.  And the success of companies, and countries, will
+depend increasingly on how they deal with it.If variation in productivity increases with technology, then the
+contribution of the most productive individuals will not only be
+disproportionately large, but will actually grow with time.  When
+you reach the point where 90% of a group's output is created by 1%
+of its members, you lose big if something (whether Viking raids,
+or central planning) drags their productivity down to the average.If we want to get the most out of them, we need to understand these
+especially productive people.  What motivates them?  What do they
+need to do their jobs?  How do you recognize them? How do you
+get them to come and work for you?  And then of course there's the
+question, how do you become one?More than MoneyI know a handful of super-hackers, so I sat down and thought about
+what they have in common.  Their defining quality is probably that
+they really love to program.  Ordinary programmers write code to pay
+the bills.  Great hackers think of it as something they do for fun,
+and which they're delighted to find people will pay them for.Great programmers are sometimes said to be indifferent to money.
+This isn't quite true.  It is true that all they really care about
+is doing interesting work.  But if you make enough money, you get
+to work on whatever you want, and for that reason hackers are
+attracted by the idea of making really large amounts of money.
+But as long as they still have to show up for work every day, they
+care more about what they do there than how much they get paid for
+it.Economically, this is a fact of the greatest importance, because
+it means you don't have to pay great hackers anything like what
+they're worth.  A great programmer might be ten or a hundred times
+as productive as an ordinary one, but he'll consider himself lucky
+to get paid three times as much.  As I'll explain later, this is
+partly because great hackers don't know how good they are.  But
+it's also because money is not the main thing they want.What do hackers want?  Like all craftsmen, hackers like good tools.
+In fact, that's an understatement.  Good hackers find it unbearable
+to use bad tools.  They'll simply refuse to work on projects with
+the wrong infrastructure.At a startup I once worked for, one of the things pinned up on our
+bulletin board was an ad from IBM.  It was a picture of an AS400,
+and the headline read, I think, "hackers despise
+it.'' [1]When you decide what infrastructure to use for a project, you're
+not just making a technical decision.  You're also making a social
+decision, and this may be the more important of the two.  For
+example, if your company wants to write some software, it might
+seem a prudent choice to write it in Java.  But when you choose a
+language, you're also choosing a community.  The programmers you'll
+be able to hire to work on a Java project won't be as
+smart as the
+ones you could get to work on a project written in Python.
+And the quality of your hackers probably matters more than the
+language you choose.  Though, frankly, the fact that good hackers
+prefer Python to Java should tell you something about the relative
+merits of those languages.Business types prefer the most popular languages because they view
+languages as standards. They don't want to bet the company on
+Betamax.  The thing about languages, though, is that they're not
+just standards.  If you have to move bits over a network, by all
+means use TCP/IP.  But a programming language isn't just a format.
+A programming language is a medium of expression.I've read that Java has just overtaken Cobol as the most popular
+language.  As a standard, you couldn't wish for more.  But as a
+medium of expression, you could do a lot better.  Of all the great
+programmers I can think of, I know of only one who would voluntarily
+program in Java.  And of all the great programmers I can think of
+who don't work for Sun, on Java, I know of zero.Great hackers also generally insist on using open source software.
+Not just because it's better, but because it gives them more control.
+Good hackers insist on control.  This is part of what makes them
+good hackers:  when something's broken, they need to fix it.  You
+want them to feel this way about the software they're writing for
+you.  You shouldn't be surprised when they feel the same way about
+the operating system.A couple years ago a venture capitalist friend told me about a new
+startup he was involved with.  It sounded promising.  But the next
+time I talked to him, he said they'd decided to build their software
+on Windows NT, and had just hired a very experienced NT developer
+to be their chief technical officer.  When I heard this, I thought,
+these guys are doomed.  One, the CTO couldn't be a first rate
+hacker, because to become an eminent NT developer he would have
+had to use NT voluntarily, multiple times, and I couldn't imagine
+a great hacker doing that; and two, even if he was good, he'd have
+a hard time hiring anyone good to work for him if the project had
+to be built on NT. [2]The Final FrontierAfter software, the most important tool to a hacker is probably
+his office.  Big companies think the function of office space is to express
+rank.  But hackers use their offices for more than that: they
+use their office as a place to think in.  And if you're a technology
+company, their thoughts are your product.  So making hackers work
+in a noisy, distracting environment is like having a paint factory
+where the air is full of soot.The cartoon strip Dilbert has a lot to say about cubicles, and with
+good reason.  All the hackers I know despise them.  The mere prospect
+of being interrupted is enough to prevent hackers from working on
+hard problems.  If you want to get real work done in an office with
+cubicles, you have two options: work at home, or come in early or
+late or on a weekend, when no one else is there.  Don't companies
+realize this is a sign that something is broken?  An office
+environment is supposed to be something that helps
+you work, not something you work despite.Companies like Cisco are proud that everyone there has a cubicle,
+even the CEO.  But they're not so advanced as they think; obviously
+they still view office space as a badge of rank.  Note too that
+Cisco is famous for doing very little product development in house.
+They get new technology by buying the startups that created it-- where
+presumably the hackers did have somewhere quiet to work.One big company that understands what hackers need is Microsoft.
+I once saw a recruiting ad for Microsoft with a big picture of a
+door.  Work for us, the premise was, and we'll give you a place to
+work where you can actually get work done.   And you know, Microsoft
+is remarkable among big companies in that they are able to develop
+software in house.  Not well, perhaps, but well enough.If companies want hackers to be productive, they should look at
+what they do at home.  At home, hackers can arrange things themselves
+so they can get the most done.  And when they work at home, hackers
+don't work in noisy, open spaces; they work in rooms with doors.  They
+work in cosy, neighborhoody places with people around and somewhere
+to walk when they need to mull something over, instead of in glass
+boxes set in acres of parking lots.  They have a sofa they can take
+a nap on when they feel tired, instead of sitting in a coma at
+their desk, pretending to work.  There's no crew of people with
+vacuum cleaners that roars through every evening during the prime
+hacking hours.  There are no meetings or, God forbid, corporate
+retreats or team-building exercises.  And when you look at what
+they're doing on that computer, you'll find it reinforces what I
+said earlier about tools.  They may have to use Java and Windows
+at work, but at home, where they can choose for themselves, you're
+more likely to find them using Perl and Linux.Indeed, these statistics about Cobol or Java being the most popular
+language can be misleading.  What we ought to look at, if we want
+to know what tools are best, is what hackers choose when they can
+choose freely-- that is, in projects of their own.  When you ask
+that question, you find that open source operating systems already
+have a dominant market share, and the number one language is probably
+Perl.InterestingAlong with good tools, hackers want interesting projects.  What
+makes a project interesting?  Well, obviously overtly sexy
+applications like stealth planes or special effects software would
+be interesting to work on.  But any application can be interesting
+if it poses novel technical challenges.  So it's hard to predict
+which problems hackers will like, because some become
+interesting only when the people working on them discover a new
+kind of solution.  Before ITA
+(who wrote the software inside Orbitz),
+the people working on airline fare searches probably thought it
+was one of the most boring applications imaginable.  But ITA made
+it interesting by 
+redefining the problem in a more ambitious way.I think the same thing happened at Google.  When Google was founded,
+the conventional wisdom among the so-called portals was that search
+was boring and unimportant.  But the guys at Google didn't think
+search was boring, and that's why they do it so well.This is an area where managers can make a difference.  Like a parent
+saying to a child, I bet you can't clean up your whole room in
+ten minutes, a good manager can sometimes redefine a problem as a
+more interesting one.  Steve Jobs seems to be particularly good at
+this, in part simply by having high standards.  There were a lot
+of small, inexpensive computers before the Mac.  He redefined the
+problem as: make one that's beautiful.  And that probably drove
+the developers harder than any carrot or stick could.They certainly delivered.  When the Mac first appeared, you didn't
+even have to turn it on to know it would be good; you could tell
+from the case.  A few weeks ago I was walking along the street in
+Cambridge, and in someone's trash I saw what appeared to be a Mac
+carrying case.  I looked inside, and there was a Mac SE.  I carried
+it home and plugged it in, and it booted.  The happy Macintosh
+face, and then the finder.  My God, it was so simple.  It was just
+like ... Google.Hackers like to work for people with high standards.  But it's not
+enough just to be exacting.  You have to insist on the right things.
+Which usually means that you have to be a hacker yourself.  I've
+seen occasional articles about how to manage programmers.  Really
+there should be two articles: one about what to do if
+you are yourself a programmer, and one about what to do if you're not.  And the 
+second could probably be condensed into two words:  give up.The problem is not so much the day to day management.  Really good
+hackers are practically self-managing.  The problem is, if you're
+not a hacker, you can't tell who the good hackers are.  A similar
+problem explains why American cars are so ugly.  I call it the
+design paradox.  You might think that you could make your products
+beautiful just by hiring a great designer to design them.  But if
+you yourself don't have good taste, 
+how are you going to recognize
+a good designer?  By definition you can't tell from his portfolio.
+And you can't go by the awards he's won or the jobs he's had,
+because in design, as in most fields, those tend to be driven by
+fashion and schmoozing, with actual ability a distant third.
+There's no way around it:  you can't manage a process intended to
+produce beautiful things without knowing what beautiful is.  American
+cars are ugly because American car companies are run by people with
+bad taste.Many people in this country think of taste as something elusive,
+or even frivolous.  It is neither.  To drive design, a manager must
+be the most demanding user of a company's products.  And if you
+have really good taste, you can, as Steve Jobs does, make satisfying
+you the kind of problem that good people like to work on.Nasty Little ProblemsIt's pretty easy to say what kinds of problems are not interesting:
+those where instead of solving a few big, clear, problems, you have
+to solve a lot of nasty little ones.  One of the worst kinds of
+projects is writing an interface to a piece of software that's
+full of bugs.  Another is when you have to customize
+something for an individual client's complex and ill-defined needs.
+To hackers these kinds of projects are the death of a thousand
+cuts.The distinguishing feature of nasty little problems is that you
+don't learn anything from them.   Writing a compiler is interesting
+because it teaches you what a compiler is.  But writing an interface
+to a buggy piece of software doesn't teach you anything, because the
+bugs are random.  [3] So it's not just fastidiousness that makes good
+hackers avoid nasty little problems.  It's more a question of
+self-preservation.  Working on nasty little problems makes you
+stupid.  Good hackers avoid it for the same reason models avoid
+cheeseburgers.Of course some problems inherently have this character.  And because
+of supply and demand, they pay especially well.  So a company that
+found a way to get great hackers to work on tedious problems would
+be very successful.  How would you do it?One place this happens is in startups.  At our startup we had 
+Robert Morris working as a system administrator.  That's like having the
+Rolling Stones play at a bar mitzvah.  You can't hire that kind of
+talent.  But people will do any amount of drudgery for companies
+of which they're the founders.  [4]Bigger companies solve the problem by partitioning the company.
+They get smart people to work for them by establishing a separate
+R&D department where employees don't have to work directly on
+customers' nasty little problems. [5] In this model, the research
+department functions like a mine. They produce new ideas; maybe
+the rest of the company will be able to use them.You may not have to go to this extreme.  
+Bottom-up programming
+suggests another way to partition the company: have the smart people
+work as toolmakers.  If your company makes software to do x, have
+one group that builds tools for writing software of that type, and
+another that uses these tools to write the applications.  This way
+you might be able to get smart people to write 99% of your code,
+but still keep them almost as insulated from users as they would
+be in a traditional research department.  The toolmakers would have
+users, but they'd only be the company's own developers.  [6]If Microsoft used this approach, their software wouldn't be so full
+of security holes, because the less smart people writing the actual
+applications wouldn't be doing low-level stuff like allocating
+memory.  Instead of writing Word directly in C, they'd be plugging
+together big Lego blocks of Word-language.  (Duplo, I believe, is
+the technical term.)ClumpingAlong with interesting problems, what good hackers like is other
+good hackers.  Great hackers tend to clump together-- sometimes
+spectacularly so, as at Xerox Parc.   So you won't attract good
+hackers in linear proportion to how good an environment you create
+for them.  The tendency to clump means it's more like the square
+of the environment.  So it's winner take all.  At any given time,
+there are only about ten or twenty places where hackers most want to
+work, and if you aren't one of them, you won't just have fewer
+great hackers, you'll have zero.Having great hackers is not, by itself, enough to make a company
+successful.  It works well for Google and ITA, which are two of
+the hot spots right now, but it didn't help Thinking Machines or
+Xerox.  Sun had a good run for a while, but their business model
+is a down elevator.  In that situation, even the best hackers can't
+save you.I think, though, that all other things being equal, a company that
+can attract great hackers will have a huge advantage.  There are
+people who would disagree with this.  When we were making the rounds
+of venture capital firms in the 1990s, several told us that software
+companies didn't win by writing great software, but through brand,
+and dominating channels, and doing the right deals.They really seemed to believe this, and I think I know why.  I
+think what a lot of VCs are looking for, at least unconsciously,
+is the next Microsoft.  And of course if Microsoft is your model,
+you shouldn't be looking for companies that hope to win by writing
+great software.  But VCs are mistaken to look for the next Microsoft,
+because no startup can be the next Microsoft unless some other
+company is prepared to bend over at just the right moment and be
+the next IBM.It's a mistake to use Microsoft as a model, because their whole
+culture derives from that one lucky break.  Microsoft is a bad data
+point.  If you throw them out, you find that good products do tend
+to win in the market.  What VCs should be looking for is the next
+Apple, or the next Google.I think Bill Gates knows this.  What worries him about Google is
+not the power of their brand, but the fact that they have
+better hackers. [7]
+RecognitionSo who are the great hackers?  How do you know when you meet one?
+That turns out to be very hard.  Even hackers can't tell.  I'm
+pretty sure now that my friend Trevor Blackwell is a great hacker.
+You may have read on Slashdot how he made his 
+own Segway.  The
+remarkable thing about this project was that he wrote all the
+software in one day (in Python, incidentally).For Trevor, that's
+par for the course.  But when I first met him, I thought he was a
+complete idiot.  He was standing in Robert Morris's office babbling
+at him about something or other, and I remember standing behind
+him making frantic gestures at Robert to shoo this nut out of his
+office so we could go to lunch.  Robert says he misjudged Trevor
+at first too.  Apparently when Robert first met him, Trevor had
+just begun a new scheme that involved writing down everything about
+every aspect of his life on a stack of index cards, which he carried
+with him everywhere.  He'd also just arrived from Canada, and had
+a strong Canadian accent and a mullet.The problem is compounded by the fact that hackers, despite their
+reputation for social obliviousness, sometimes put a good deal of
+effort into seeming smart.  When I was in grad school I used to
+hang around the MIT AI Lab occasionally. It was kind of intimidating
+at first.  Everyone there spoke so fast.  But after a while I
+learned the trick of speaking fast.  You don't have to think any
+faster; just use twice as many words to say everything.  With this amount of noise in the signal, it's hard to tell good
+hackers when you meet them.  I can't tell, even now.  You also
+can't tell from their resumes.  It seems like the only way to judge
+a hacker is to work with him on something.And this is the reason that high-tech areas 
+only happen around universities.  The active ingredient
+here is not so much the professors as the students.  Startups grow up
+around universities because universities bring together promising young
+people and make them work on the same projects.  The
+smart ones learn who the other smart ones are, and together
+they cook up new projects of their own.Because you can't tell a great hacker except by working with him,
+hackers themselves can't tell how good they are.  This is true to
+a degree in most fields.  I've found that people who
+are great at something are not so much convinced of their own
+greatness as mystified at why everyone else seems so incompetent.
+But it's particularly hard for hackers to know how good they are,
+because it's hard to compare their work.  This is easier in most
+other fields.  In the hundred meters, you know in 10 seconds who's
+fastest.  Even in math there seems to be a general consensus about
+which problems are hard to solve, and what constitutes a good
+solution.  But hacking is like writing.  Who can say which of two
+novels is better?  Certainly not the authors.With hackers, at least, other hackers can tell.  That's because,
+unlike novelists, hackers collaborate on projects.  When you get
+to hit a few difficult problems over the net at someone, you learn
+pretty quickly how hard they hit them back.  But hackers can't
+watch themselves at work.  So if you ask a great hacker how good
+he is, he's almost certain to reply, I don't know.  He's not just
+being modest.  He really doesn't know.And none of us know, except about people we've actually worked
+with.  Which puts us in a weird situation: we don't know who our
+heroes should be.  The hackers who become famous tend to become
+famous by random accidents of PR.  Occasionally I need to give an
+example of a great hacker, and I never know who to use.  The first
+names that come to mind always tend to be people I know personally,
+but it seems lame to use them.  So, I think, maybe I should say
+Richard Stallman, or Linus Torvalds, or Alan Kay, or someone famous
+like that.  But I have no idea if these guys are great hackers.
+I've never worked with them on anything.If there is a Michael Jordan of hacking, no one knows, including
+him.CultivationFinally, the question the hackers have all been wondering about:
+how do you become a great hacker?  I don't know if it's possible
+to make yourself into one.  But it's certainly possible to do things
+that make you stupid, and if you can make yourself stupid, you
+can probably make yourself smart too.The key to being a good hacker may be to work on what you like.
+When I think about the great hackers I know, one thing they have
+in common is the extreme 
+difficulty of making them work 
+on anything they
+don't want to.  I don't know if this is cause or effect; it may be
+both.To do something well you have to love it.  
+So to the extent you
+can preserve hacking as something you love, you're likely to do it
+well.  Try to keep the sense of wonder you had about programming at
+age 14.  If you're worried that your current job is rotting your
+brain, it probably is.The best hackers tend to be smart, of course, but that's true in
+a lot of fields.  Is there some quality that's unique to hackers?
+I asked some friends, and the number one thing they mentioned was
+curiosity.  
+I'd always supposed that all smart people were curious--
+that curiosity was simply the first derivative of knowledge.  But
+apparently hackers are particularly curious, especially about how
+things work.  That makes sense, because programs are in effect
+giant descriptions of how things work.Several friends mentioned hackers' ability to concentrate-- their
+ability, as one put it, to "tune out everything outside their own
+heads.''  I've certainly noticed this.  And I've heard several 
+hackers say that after drinking even half a beer they can't program at
+all.   So maybe hacking does require some special ability to focus.
+Perhaps great hackers can load a large amount of context into their
+head, so that when they look at a line of code, they see not just
+that line but the whole program around it.  John McPhee
+wrote that Bill Bradley's success as a basketball player was due
+partly to his extraordinary peripheral vision.  "Perfect'' eyesight
+means about 47 degrees of vertical peripheral vision.  Bill Bradley
+had 70; he could see the basket when he was looking at the floor.
+Maybe great hackers have some similar inborn ability.  (I cheat by
+using a very dense language, 
+which shrinks the court.)This could explain the disconnect over cubicles.  Maybe the people
+in charge of facilities, not having any concentration to shatter,
+have no idea that working in a cubicle feels to a hacker like having
+one's brain in a blender.  (Whereas Bill, if the rumors of autism
+are true, knows all too well.)One difference I've noticed between great hackers and smart people
+in general is that hackers are more 
+politically incorrect.  To the
+extent there is a secret handshake among good hackers, it's when they
+know one another well enough to express opinions that would get
+them stoned to death by the general public.  And I can see why
+political incorrectness would be a useful quality in programming.
+Programs are very complex and, at least in the hands of good
+programmers, very fluid.  In such situations it's helpful to have
+a habit of questioning assumptions.Can you cultivate these qualities?  I don't know.  But you can at
+least not repress them.  So here is my best shot at a recipe.  If
+it is possible to make yourself into a great hacker, the way to do
+it may be to make the following deal with yourself: you never have
+to work on boring projects (unless your family will starve otherwise),
+and in return, you'll never allow yourself to do a half-assed job.
+All the great hackers I know seem to have made that deal, though
+perhaps none of them had any choice in the matter.Notes
+[1] In fairness, I have to say that IBM makes decent hardware.  I
+wrote this on an IBM laptop.[2] They did turn out to be doomed.  They shut down a few months
+later.[3] I think this is what people mean when they talk
+about the "meaning of life."  On the face of it, this seems an 
+odd idea.  Life isn't an expression; how could it have meaning?
+But it can have a quality that feels a lot like meaning.  In a project
+like a compiler, you have to solve a lot of problems, but the problems
+all fall into a pattern, as in a signal.  Whereas when the problems
+you have to solve are random, they seem like noise.
+[4] Einstein at one point worked designing refrigerators. (He had equity.)[5] It's hard to say exactly what constitutes research in the
+computer world, but as a first approximation, it's software that
+doesn't have users.I don't think it's publication that makes the best hackers want to work
+in research departments.  I think it's mainly not having to have a
+three hour meeting with a product manager about problems integrating
+the Korean version of Word 13.27 with the talking paperclip.[6] Something similar has been happening for a long time in the
+construction industry. When you had a house built a couple hundred
+years ago, the local builders built everything in it.  But increasingly
+what builders do is assemble components designed and manufactured
+by someone else.  This has, like the arrival of desktop publishing,
+given people the freedom to experiment in disastrous ways, but it
+is certainly more efficient.[7] Google is much more dangerous to Microsoft than Netscape was.
+Probably more dangerous than any other company has ever been.  Not
+least because they're determined to fight.  On their job listing
+page, they say that one of their "core values'' is "Don't be evil.''
+From a company selling soybean oil or mining equipment, such a
+statement would merely be eccentric.  But I think all of us in the
+computer world recognize who that is a declaration of war on.Thanks to Jessica Livingston, Robert Morris, and Sarah Harlin
+for reading earlier versions of this talk.

PaulGrahamEssays/goodtaste.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+November 2021(This essay is derived from a talk at the Cambridge Union.)When I was a kid, I'd have said there wasn't. My father told me so.
+Some people like some things, and other people like other things,
+and who's to say who's right?It seemed so obvious that there was no such thing as good taste
+that it was only through indirect evidence that I realized my father
+was wrong. And that's what I'm going to give you here: a proof by
+reductio ad absurdum. If we start from the premise that there's no
+such thing as good taste, we end up with conclusions that are
+obviously false, and therefore the premise must be wrong.We'd better start by saying what good taste is. There's a narrow
+sense in which it refers to aesthetic judgements and a broader one
+in which it refers to preferences of any kind. The strongest proof
+would be to show that taste exists in the narrowest sense, so I'm
+going to talk about taste in art. You have better taste than me if
+the art you like is better than the art I like.If there's no such thing as good taste, then there's no such thing
+as good art. Because if there is such a
+thing as good art, it's
+easy to tell which of two people has better taste. Show them a lot
+of works by artists they've never seen before and ask them to
+choose the best, and whoever chooses the better art has better
+taste.So if you want to discard the concept of good taste, you also have
+to discard the concept of good art. And that means you have to
+discard the possibility of people being good at making it. Which
+means there's no way for artists to be good at their jobs. And not
+just visual artists, but anyone who is in any sense an artist. You
+can't have good actors, or novelists, or composers, or dancers
+either. You can have popular novelists, but not good ones.We don't realize how far we'd have to go if we discarded the concept
+of good taste, because we don't even debate the most obvious cases.
+But it doesn't just mean we can't say which of two famous painters
+is better. It means we can't say that any painter is better than a
+randomly chosen eight year old.That was how I realized my father was wrong. I started studying
+painting. And it was just like other kinds of work I'd done: you
+could do it well, or badly, and if you tried hard, you could get
+better at it. And it was obvious that Leonardo and Bellini were
+much better at it than me. That gap between us was not imaginary.
+They were so good. And if they could be good, then art could be
+good, and there was such a thing as good taste after all.Now that I've explained how to show there is such a thing as good
+taste, I should also explain why people think there isn't. There
+are two reasons. One is that there's always so much disagreement
+about taste. Most people's response to art is a tangle of unexamined
+impulses. Is the artist famous? Is the subject attractive? Is this
+the sort of art they're supposed to like? Is it hanging in a famous
+museum, or reproduced in a big, expensive book? In practice most
+people's response to art is dominated by such extraneous factors.And the people who do claim to have good taste are so often mistaken.
+The paintings admired by the so-called experts in one generation
+are often so different from those admired a few generations later.
+It's easy to conclude there's nothing real there at all. It's only
+when you isolate this force, for example by trying to paint and
+comparing your work to Bellini's, that you can see that it does in
+fact exist.The other reason people doubt that art can be good is that there
+doesn't seem to be any room in the art for this goodness. The
+argument goes like this. Imagine several people looking at a work
+of art and judging how good it is. If being good art really is a
+property of objects, it should be in the object somehow. But it
+doesn't seem to be; it seems to be something happening in the heads
+of each of the observers. And if they disagree, how do you choose
+between them?The solution to this puzzle is to realize that the purpose of art
+is to work on its human audience, and humans have a lot in common.
+And to the extent the things an object acts upon respond in the
+same way, that's arguably what it means for the object to have the
+corresponding property. If everything a particle interacts with
+behaves as if the particle had a mass of m, then it has a mass of
+m. So the distinction between "objective" and "subjective" is not
+binary, but a matter of degree, depending on how much the subjects
+have in common. Particles interacting with one another are at one
+pole, but people interacting with art are not all the way at the
+other; their reactions aren't random.Because people's responses to art aren't random, art can be designed
+to operate on people, and be good or bad depending on how effectively
+it does so. Much as a vaccine can be. If someone were talking about
+the ability of a vaccine to confer immunity, it would seem very
+frivolous to object that conferring immunity wasn't really a property
+of vaccines, because acquiring immunity is something that happens
+in the immune system of each individual person. Sure, people's
+immune systems vary, and a vaccine that worked on one might not
+work on another, but that doesn't make it meaningless to talk about
+the effectiveness of a vaccine.The situation with art is messier, of course. You can't measure
+effectiveness by simply taking a vote, as you do with vaccines.
+You have to imagine the responses of subjects with a deep knowledge
+of art, and enough clarity of mind to be able to ignore extraneous
+influences like the fame of the artist. And even then you'd still
+see some disagreement. People do vary, and judging art is hard,
+especially recent art. There is definitely not a total order either
+of works or of people's ability to judge them. But there is equally
+definitely a partial order of both. So while it's not possible to
+have perfect taste, it is possible to have good taste.
+Thanks to the Cambridge Union for inviting me, and to Trevor
+Blackwell, Jessica Livingston, and Robert Morris for reading drafts
+of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/hubs.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+
+
+Want to start a startup?  Get funded by
+Y Combinator.
+
+
+
+
+October 2011If you look at a list of US cities sorted by population, the number
+of successful startups per capita varies by orders of magnitude.
+Somehow it's as if most places were sprayed with startupicide.I wondered about this for years.  I could see the average town was
+like a roach motel for startup ambitions: smart, ambitious people
+went in, but no startups came out.  But I was never able to figure
+out exactly what happened inside the motel—exactly what was
+killing all the potential startups.
+[1]A couple weeks ago I finally figured it out. I was framing the
+question wrong.  The problem is not that most towns kill startups.
+It's that death is the default for startups,
+and most towns don't save them.  Instead of thinking of most places
+as being sprayed with startupicide, it's more accurate to think of
+startups as all being poisoned, and a few places being sprayed with
+the antidote.Startups in other places are just doing what startups naturally do:
+fail.  The real question is, what's saving startups in places
+like Silicon Valley?
+[2]EnvironmentI think there are two components to the antidote: being in a place
+where startups are the cool thing to do, and chance meetings with
+people who can help you.  And what drives them both is the number
+of startup people around you.The first component is particularly helpful in the first stage of
+a startup's life, when you go from merely having an interest in
+starting a company to actually doing it.  It's quite a leap to start
+a startup.  It's an unusual thing to do. But in Silicon Valley it
+seems normal.
+[3]In most places, if you start a startup, people treat you as if
+you're unemployed.  People in the Valley aren't automatically
+impressed with you just because you're starting a company, but they
+pay attention.  Anyone who's been here any amount of time knows not
+to default to skepticism, no matter how inexperienced you seem or
+how unpromising your idea sounds at first, because they've all seen
+inexperienced founders with unpromising sounding ideas who a few
+years later were billionaires.Having people around you care about what you're doing is an
+extraordinarily powerful force.  Even the
+most willful people are susceptible to it.  About a year after we
+started Y Combinator I said something to a partner at a well known
+VC firm that gave him the (mistaken) impression I was considering
+starting another startup.  He responded so eagerly that for about
+half a second I found myself considering doing it.In most other cities, the prospect of starting a startup just doesn't
+seem real.  In the Valley it's not only real but fashionable.  That
+no doubt causes a lot of people to start startups who shouldn't.
+But I think that's ok.  Few people are suited to running a startup,
+and it's very hard to predict beforehand which are (as I know all
+too well from being in the business of trying to predict beforehand),
+so lots of people starting startups who shouldn't is probably the
+optimal state of affairs.  As long as you're at a point in your
+life when you can bear the risk of failure, the best way to find
+out if you're suited to running a startup is to try
+it.ChanceThe second component of the antidote is chance meetings with people
+who can help you.  This force works in both phases: both in the
+transition from the desire to start a startup to starting one, and
+the transition from starting a company to succeeding.  The power
+of chance meetings is more variable than people around you caring
+about startups, which is like a sort of background radiation that
+affects everyone equally, but at its strongest it is far stronger.Chance meetings produce miracles to compensate for the disasters
+that characteristically befall startups.  In the Valley, terrible
+things happen to startups all the time, just like they do to startups
+everywhere.  The reason startups are more likely to make it here
+is that great things happen to them too.  In the Valley, lightning
+has a sign bit.For example, you start a site for college students and you decide
+to move to the Valley for the summer to work on it.  And then on a
+random suburban street in Palo Alto you happen to run into Sean
+Parker, who understands the domain really well because he started
+a similar startup himself, and also knows all the investors.  And
+moreover has advanced views, for 2004, on founders retaining control of their companies.You can't say precisely what the miracle will be, or even for sure
+that one will happen.  The best one can say is: if you're in a
+startup hub, unexpected good things will probably happen to you,
+especially if you deserve them.I bet this is true even for startups we fund.  Even with us working
+to make things happen for them on purpose rather than by accident,
+the frequency of helpful chance meetings in the Valley is so high
+that it's still a significant increment on what we can deliver.Chance meetings play a role like the role relaxation plays in having
+ideas.  Most people have had the experience of working hard on some
+problem, not being able to solve it, giving up and going to bed,
+and then thinking of the answer in the shower in the morning.  What
+makes the answer appear is letting your thoughts drift a bit—and thus drift off the wrong
+path you'd been pursuing last night and onto the right one adjacent
+to it.Chance meetings let your acquaintance drift in the same way taking
+a shower lets your thoughts drift. The critical thing in both cases
+is that they drift just the right amount.  The meeting between Larry
+Page and Sergey Brin was a good example.  They let their acquaintance
+drift, but only a little; they were both meeting someone they had
+a lot in common with.For Larry Page the most important component of the antidote was
+Sergey Brin, and vice versa.  The antidote is 
+people.  It's not the
+physical infrastructure of Silicon Valley that makes it work, or
+the weather, or anything like that.  Those helped get it started,
+but now that the reaction is self-sustaining what drives it is the
+people.Many observers have noticed that one of the most distinctive things
+about startup hubs is the degree to which people help one another
+out, with no expectation of getting anything in return.  I'm not
+sure why this is so.  Perhaps it's because startups are less of a
+zero sum game than most types of business; they are rarely killed
+by competitors.  Or perhaps it's because so many startup founders
+have backgrounds in the sciences, where collaboration is encouraged.A large part of YC's function is to accelerate that process.  We're
+a sort of Valley within the Valley, where the density of people
+working on startups and their willingness to help one another are
+both artificially amplified.NumbersBoth components of the antidote—an environment that encourages
+startups, and chance meetings with people who help you—are
+driven by the same underlying cause: the number of startup people
+around you.  To make a startup hub, you need a lot of people
+interested in startups.There are three reasons. The first, obviously, is that if you don't
+have enough density, the chance meetings don't happen.
+[4]
+The second is that different startups need such different things, so
+you need a lot of people to supply each startup with what they need
+most.  Sean Parker was exactly what Facebook needed in 2004.  Another
+startup might have needed a database guy, or someone with connections
+in the movie business.This is one of the reasons we fund such a large number of companies,
+incidentally.  The bigger the community, the greater the chance it
+will contain the person who has that one thing you need most.The third reason you need a lot of people to make a startup hub is
+that once you have enough people interested in the same problem,
+they start to set the social norms.  And it is a particularly
+valuable thing when the atmosphere around you encourages you to do
+something that would otherwise seem too ambitious.  In most places
+the atmosphere pulls you back toward the mean.I flew into the Bay Area a few days ago.  I notice this every time
+I fly over the Valley: somehow you can sense something is going on.  
+Obviously you can sense prosperity in how well kept a
+place looks.  But there are different kinds of prosperity.  Silicon
+Valley doesn't look like Boston, or New York, or LA, or DC.  I tried
+asking myself what word I'd use to describe the feeling the Valley
+radiated, and the word that came to mind was optimism.Notes[1]
+I'm not saying it's impossible to succeed in a city with few
+other startups, just harder.  If you're sufficiently good at
+generating your own morale, you can survive without external
+encouragement.  Wufoo was based in Tampa and they succeeded.  But
+the Wufoos are exceptionally disciplined.[2]
+Incidentally, this phenomenon is not limited to startups.  Most
+unusual ambitions fail, unless the person who has them manages to
+find the right sort of community.[3]
+Starting a company is common, but starting a startup is rare.
+I've talked about the distinction between the two elsewhere, but
+essentially a startup is a new business designed for scale.  Most
+new businesses are service businesses and except in rare cases those
+don't scale.[4]
+As I was writing this, I had a demonstration of the density of
+startup people in the Valley.  Jessica and I bicycled to University
+Ave in Palo Alto to have lunch at the fabulous Oren's Hummus.  As
+we walked in, we met Charlie Cheever sitting near the door.  Selina
+Tobaccowala stopped to say hello on her way out.  Then Josh Wilson
+came in to pick up a take out order.  After lunch we went to get
+frozen yogurt.  On the way we met Rajat Suri.  When we got to the
+yogurt place, we found Dave Shen there, and as we walked out we ran
+into Yuri Sagalov.  We walked with him for a block or so and we ran
+into Muzzammil Zaveri, and then a block later we met Aydin Senkut.
+This is everyday life in Palo Alto.  I wasn't trying to meet people;
+I was just having lunch.  And I'm sure for every startup founder
+or investor I saw that I knew, there were 5 more I didn't.  If Ron
+Conway had been with us he would have met 30 people he knew.Thanks to Sam Altman, Paul Buchheit, Jessica Livingston, and
+Harj Taggar for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/iflisp.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+May 2003If Lisp is so great, why don't more people use it?  I was    
+asked this question by a student in the audience at a 
+talk I gave recently.  Not for the first time, either.In languages, as in so many things, there's not much     
+correlation between popularity and quality.  Why does   
+John Grisham (King of Torts sales rank, 44) outsell
+Jane Austen (Pride and Prejudice sales rank, 6191)?
+Would even Grisham claim that it's because he's a better
+writer?Here's the first sentence of Pride and Prejudice:
+
+It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man 
+in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a
+wife.
+
+"It is a truth universally acknowledged?"  Long words for
+the first sentence of a love story.Like Jane Austen, Lisp looks hard.  Its syntax, or lack
+of syntax, makes it look completely unlike 
+the languages
+most people are used to.  Before I learned Lisp, I was afraid
+of it too.  I recently came across a notebook from 1983
+in which I'd written:
+
+I suppose I should learn Lisp, but it seems so foreign.
+
+Fortunately, I was 19 at the time and not too resistant to learning
+new things.  I was so ignorant that learning
+almost anything meant learning new things.People frightened by Lisp make up other reasons for not
+using it.  The standard
+excuse, back when C was the default language, was that Lisp
+was too slow.  Now that Lisp dialects are among
+the faster
+languages available, that excuse has gone away.
+Now the standard excuse is openly circular: that other languages
+are more popular.(Beware of such reasoning.  It gets you Windows.)Popularity is always self-perpetuating, but it's especially
+so in programming languages. More libraries
+get written for popular languages, which makes them still
+more popular.  Programs often have to work with existing programs,
+and this is easier if they're written in the same language,
+so languages spread from program to program like a virus.
+And managers prefer popular languages, because they give them 
+more leverage over developers, who can more easily be replaced.Indeed, if programming languages were all more or less equivalent,
+there would be little justification for using any but the most
+popular.  But they aren't all equivalent, not by a long
+shot.  And that's why less popular languages, like Jane Austen's 
+novels, continue to survive at all.  When everyone else is reading 
+the latest John Grisham novel, there will always be a few people 
+reading Jane Austen instead.

PaulGrahamEssays/island.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+July 2006I've discovered a handy test for figuring out what you're addicted
+to.  Imagine you were going to spend the weekend at a friend's house
+on a little island off the coast of Maine.  There are no shops on
+the island and you won't be able to leave while you're there.  Also,
+you've never been to this house before, so you can't assume it will
+have more than any house might.What, besides clothes and toiletries, do you make a point of packing?
+That's what you're addicted to.  For example, if you find yourself
+packing a bottle of vodka (just in case), you may want to stop and
+think about that.For me the list is four things: books, earplugs, a notebook, and a
+pen.There are other things I might bring if I thought of it, like music,
+or tea, but I can live without them.  I'm not so addicted to caffeine
+that I wouldn't risk the house not having any tea, just for a
+weekend.Quiet is another matter.  I realize it seems a bit eccentric to
+take earplugs on a trip to an island off the coast of Maine.  If
+anywhere should be quiet, that should.  But what if the person in
+the next room snored?  What if there was a kid playing basketball?
+(Thump, thump, thump... thump.)  Why risk it?  Earplugs are small.Sometimes I can think with noise.  If I already have momentum on
+some project, I can work in noisy places.  I can edit an essay or
+debug code in an airport.  But airports are not so bad: most of the
+noise is whitish.  I couldn't work with the sound of a sitcom coming
+through the wall, or a car in the street playing thump-thump music.And of course there's another kind of thinking, when you're starting
+something new, that requires complete quiet.   You never
+know when this will strike. It's just as well to carry plugs.The notebook and pen are professional equipment, as it were.  Though
+actually there is something druglike about them, in the sense that
+their main purpose is to make me feel better.  I hardly ever go
+back and read stuff I write down in notebooks.  It's just that if
+I can't write things down, worrying about remembering one idea gets
+in the way of having the next.  Pen and paper wick ideas.The best notebooks I've found are made by a company called Miquelrius.
+I use their smallest size, which is about 2.5 x 4 in.
+The secret to writing on such
+narrow pages is to break words only when you run out of space, like
+a Latin inscription.  I use the cheapest plastic Bic ballpoints,
+partly because their gluey ink doesn't seep through pages, and
+partly so I don't worry about losing them.I only started carrying a notebook about three years ago.  Before
+that I used whatever scraps of paper I could find.  But the problem
+with scraps of paper is that they're not ordered.  In a notebook
+you can guess what a scribble means by looking at the pages
+around it.  In the scrap era I was constantly finding notes I'd
+written years before that might say something I needed to remember,
+if I could only figure out what.As for books, I know the house would probably have something to
+read.  On the average trip I bring four books and only read one of
+them, because I find new books to read en route.  Really bringing
+books is insurance.I realize this dependence on books is not entirely good—that what
+I need them for is distraction.  The books I bring on trips are
+often quite virtuous, the sort of stuff that might be assigned
+reading in a college class.  But I know my motives aren't virtuous.
+I bring books because if the world gets boring I need to be able
+to slip into another distilled by some writer.  It's like eating
+jam when you know you should be eating fruit.There is a point where I'll do without books.  I was walking in
+some steep mountains once, and decided I'd rather just think, if I
+was bored, rather than carry a single unnecessary ounce.  It wasn't
+so bad.  I found I could entertain myself by having ideas instead
+of reading other people's.  If you stop eating jam, fruit starts
+to taste better.So maybe I'll try not bringing books on some future trip.  They're
+going to have to pry the plugs out of my cold, dead ears, however.

PaulGrahamEssays/know.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+December 2014I've read Villehardouin's chronicle of the Fourth Crusade at least
+two times, maybe three.  And yet if I had to write down everything
+I remember from it, I doubt it would amount to much more than a
+page.  Multiply this times several hundred, and I get an uneasy
+feeling when I look at my bookshelves. What use is it to read all
+these books if I remember so little from them?A few months ago, as I was reading Constance Reid's excellent
+biography of Hilbert, I figured out if not the answer to this
+question, at least something that made me feel better about it.
+She writes:
+
+  Hilbert had no patience with mathematical lectures which filled
+  the students with facts but did not teach them how to frame a
+  problem and solve it. He often used to tell them that "a perfect
+  formulation of a problem is already half its solution."
+
+That has always seemed to me an important point, and I was even
+more convinced of it after hearing it confirmed by Hilbert.But how had I come to believe in this idea in the first place?  A
+combination of my own experience and other things I'd read.  None
+of which I could at that moment remember!  And eventually I'd forget
+that Hilbert had confirmed it too.  But my increased belief in the
+importance of this idea would remain something I'd learned from
+this book, even after I'd forgotten I'd learned it.Reading and experience train your model of the world.  And even if
+you forget the experience or what you read, its effect on your model
+of the world persists.  Your mind is like a compiled program you've
+lost the source of.  It works, but you don't know why.The place to look for what I learned from Villehardouin's chronicle
+is not what I remember from it, but my mental models of the crusades,
+Venice, medieval culture, siege warfare, and so on.  Which doesn't
+mean I couldn't have read more attentively, but at least the harvest
+of reading is not so miserably small as it might seem.This is one of those things that seem obvious in retrospect.  But
+it was a surprise to me and presumably would be to anyone else who
+felt uneasy about (apparently) forgetting so much they'd read.Realizing it does more than make you feel a little better about
+forgetting, though.  There are specific implications.For example, reading and experience are usually "compiled" at the
+time they happen, using the state of your brain at that time.  The
+same book would get compiled differently at different points in
+your life.  Which means it is very much worth reading important
+books multiple times.  I always used to feel some misgivings about
+rereading books.  I unconsciously lumped reading together with work
+like carpentry, where having to do something again is a sign you
+did it wrong the first time.  Whereas now the phrase "already read"
+seems almost ill-formed.Intriguingly, this implication isn't limited to books.  Technology
+will increasingly make it possible to relive our experiences.  When
+people do that today it's usually to enjoy them again (e.g. when
+looking at pictures of a trip) or to find the origin of some bug in
+their compiled code (e.g. when Stephen Fry succeeded in remembering
+the childhood trauma that prevented him from singing).  But as
+technologies for recording and playing back your life improve, it
+may become common for people to relive experiences without any goal
+in mind, simply to learn from them again as one might when rereading
+a book.Eventually we may be able not just to play back experiences but
+also to index and even edit them. So although not knowing how you
+know things may seem part of being human, it may not be.
+Thanks to Sam Altman, Jessica Livingston, and Robert Morris for reading 
+drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/langdes.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,242 @@
+May 2001
+
+(These are some notes I made
+for a panel discussion on programming language design
+at MIT on May 10, 2001.)1. Programming Languages Are for People.Programming languages
+are how people talk to computers.  The computer would be just as
+happy speaking any language that was unambiguous.  The reason we
+have high level languages is because people can't deal with
+machine language.  The point of programming
+languages is to prevent our poor frail human brains from being 
+overwhelmed by a mass of detail.Architects know that some kinds of design problems are more personal
+than others.  One of the cleanest, most abstract design problems
+is designing bridges.  There your job is largely a matter of spanning
+a given distance with the least material.  The other end of the
+spectrum is designing chairs.  Chair designers have to spend their
+time thinking about human butts.Software varies in the same way. Designing algorithms for routing
+data through a network is a nice, abstract problem, like designing
+bridges.  Whereas designing programming languages is like designing
+chairs: it's all about dealing with human weaknesses.Most of us hate to acknowledge this.  Designing systems of great
+mathematical elegance sounds a lot more appealing to most of us
+than pandering to human weaknesses.  And there is a role for mathematical
+elegance: some kinds of elegance make programs easier to understand.
+But elegance is not an end in itself.And when I say languages have to be designed to suit human weaknesses,
+I don't mean that languages have to be designed for bad programmers.
+In fact I think you ought to design for the 
+best programmers, but
+even the best programmers have limitations.  I don't think anyone
+would like programming in a language where all the variables were
+the letter x with integer subscripts.2. Design for Yourself and Your Friends.If you look at the history of programming languages, a lot of the best
+ones were languages designed for their own authors to use, and a
+lot of the worst ones were designed for other people to use.When languages are designed for other people, it's always a specific
+group of other people: people not as smart as the language designer.
+So you get a language that talks down to you.  Cobol is the most
+extreme case, but a lot of languages are pervaded by this spirit.It has nothing to do with how abstract the language is.  C is pretty
+low-level, but it was designed for its authors to use, and that's
+why hackers like it.The argument for designing languages for bad programmers is that
+there are more bad programmers than good programmers.  That may be
+so.  But those few good programmers write a disproportionately
+large percentage of the software.I'm interested in the question, how do you design a language that
+the very best hackers will like?  I happen to think this is
+identical to the question, how do you design a good programming
+language?, but even if it isn't, it is at least an interesting
+question.3. Give the Programmer as Much Control as Possible.Many languages
+(especially the ones designed for other people) have the attitude
+of a governess: they try to prevent you from
+doing things that they think aren't good for you.  I like the   
+opposite approach: give the programmer as much
+control as you can.When I first learned Lisp, what I liked most about it was
+that it considered me an equal partner.  In the other languages
+I had learned up till then, there was the language and there was my   
+program, written in the language, and the two were very separate.
+But in Lisp the functions and macros I wrote were just like those
+that made up the language itself.  I could rewrite the language
+if I wanted.  It had the same appeal as open-source software.4. Aim for Brevity.Brevity is underestimated and even scorned.
+But if you look into the hearts of hackers, you'll see that they
+really love it.  How many times have you heard hackers speak fondly
+of how in, say, APL, they could do amazing things with just a couple
+lines of code?  I think anything that really smart people really
+love is worth paying attention to.I think almost anything
+you can do to make programs shorter is good.  There should be lots
+of library functions; anything that can be implicit should be;
+the syntax should be terse to a fault; even the names of things
+should be short.And it's not only programs that should be short.  The manual should
+be thin as well.  A good part of manuals is taken up with clarifications
+and reservations and warnings and special cases.  If you force  
+yourself to shorten the manual, in the best case you do it by fixing
+the things in the language that required so much explanation.5. Admit What Hacking Is.A lot of people wish that hacking was
+mathematics, or at least something like a natural science.  I think
+hacking is more like architecture.  Architecture is
+related to physics, in the sense that architects have to design
+buildings that don't fall down, but the actual goal of architects
+is to make great buildings, not to make discoveries about statics.What hackers like to do is make great programs.
+And I think, at least in our own minds, we have to remember that it's
+an admirable thing to write great programs, even when this work 
+doesn't translate easily into the conventional intellectual
+currency of research papers.  Intellectually, it is just as
+worthwhile to design a language programmers will love as it is to design a
+horrible one that embodies some idea you can publish a paper
+about.1. How to Organize Big Libraries?Libraries are becoming an
+increasingly important component of programming languages.  They're
+also getting bigger, and this can be dangerous.  If it takes longer
+to find the library function that will do what you want than it
+would take to write it yourself, then all that code is doing nothing
+but make your manual thick.  (The Symbolics manuals were a case in 
+point.)  So I think we will have to work on ways to organize
+libraries.  The ideal would be to design them so that the programmer
+could guess what library call would do the right thing.2. Are People Really Scared of Prefix Syntax?This is an open
+problem in the sense that I have wondered about it for years and
+still don't know the answer.  Prefix syntax seems perfectly natural
+to me, except possibly for math.  But it could be that a lot of 
+Lisp's unpopularity is simply due to having an unfamiliar syntax.   
+Whether to do anything about it, if it is true, is another question. 
+
+3. What Do You Need for Server-Based Software?
+
+I think a lot of the most exciting new applications that get written
+in the next twenty years will be Web-based applications, meaning
+programs that sit on the server and talk to you through a Web
+browser.  And to write these kinds of programs we may need some
+new things.One thing we'll need is support for the new way that server-based 
+apps get released.  Instead of having one or two big releases a
+year, like desktop software, server-based apps get released as a
+series of small changes.  You may have as many as five or ten
+releases a day.  And as a rule everyone will always use the latest
+version.You know how you can design programs to be debuggable?
+Well, server-based software likewise has to be designed to be
+changeable.  You have to be able to change it easily, or at least
+to know what is a small change and what is a momentous one.Another thing that might turn out to be useful for server based
+software, surprisingly, is continuations.  In Web-based software
+you can use something like continuation-passing style to get the
+effect of subroutines in the inherently 
+stateless world of a Web
+session.  Maybe it would be worthwhile having actual continuations,
+if it was not too expensive.4. What New Abstractions Are Left to Discover?I'm not sure how
+reasonable a hope this is, but one thing I would really love to    
+do, personally, is discover a new abstraction-- something that would
+make as much of a difference as having first class functions or
+recursion or even keyword parameters.  This may be an impossible
+dream.  These things don't get discovered that often.  But I am always
+looking.1. You Can Use Whatever Language You Want.Writing application
+programs used to mean writing desktop software.  And in desktop
+software there is a big bias toward writing the application in the
+same language as the operating system.  And so ten years ago,
+writing software pretty much meant writing software in C.
+Eventually a tradition evolved:
+application programs must not be written in unusual languages.  
+And this tradition had so long to develop that nontechnical people
+like managers and venture capitalists also learned it.Server-based software blows away this whole model.  With server-based
+software you can use any language you want.  Almost nobody understands
+this yet (especially not managers and venture capitalists).
+A few hackers understand it, and that's why we even hear
+about new, indy languages like Perl and Python.  We're not hearing
+about Perl and Python because people are using them to write Windows
+apps.What this means for us, as people interested in designing programming
+languages, is that there is now potentially an actual audience for
+our work.2. Speed Comes from Profilers.Language designers, or at least
+language implementors, like to write compilers that generate fast
+code.  But I don't think this is what makes languages fast for users.
+Knuth pointed out long ago that speed only matters in a few critical
+bottlenecks.  And anyone who's tried it knows that you can't guess
+where these bottlenecks are.  Profilers are the answer.Language designers are solving the wrong problem.  Users don't need
+benchmarks to run fast.  What they need is a language that can show
+them what parts of their own programs need to be rewritten.  That's
+where speed comes from in practice.  So maybe it would be a net 
+win if language implementors took half the time they would
+have spent doing compiler optimizations and spent it writing a
+good profiler instead.3. You Need an Application to Drive the Design of a Language.This may not be an absolute rule, but it seems like the best languages
+all evolved together with some application they were being used to
+write.  C was written by people who needed it for systems programming.
+Lisp was developed partly to do symbolic differentiation, and
+McCarthy was so eager to get started that he was writing differentiation
+programs even in the first paper on Lisp, in 1960.It's especially good if your application solves some new problem.
+That will tend to drive your language to have new features that   
+programmers need.  I personally am interested in writing
+a language that will be good for writing server-based applications.[During the panel, Guy Steele also made this point, with the
+additional suggestion that the application should not consist of
+writing the compiler for your language, unless your language
+happens to be intended for writing compilers.]4. A Language Has to Be Good for Writing Throwaway Programs.You know what a throwaway program is: something you write quickly for
+some limited task.  I think if you looked around you'd find that  
+a lot of big, serious programs started as throwaway programs.  I
+would not be surprised if most programs started as throwaway
+programs.  And so if you want to make a language that's good for
+writing software in general, it has to be good for writing throwaway
+programs, because that is the larval stage of most software.5. Syntax Is Connected to Semantics.It's traditional to think of
+syntax and semantics as being completely separate.  This will
+sound shocking, but it may be that they aren't.
+I think that what you want in your language may be related
+to how you express it.I was talking recently to Robert Morris, and he pointed out that
+operator overloading is a bigger win in languages with infix
+syntax.  In a language with prefix syntax, any function you define
+is effectively an operator.  If you want to define a plus for a
+new type of number you've made up, you can just define a new function
+to add them.  If you do that in a language with infix syntax,
+there's a big difference in appearance between the use of an
+overloaded operator and a function call.1. New Programming Languages.Back in the 1970s
+it was fashionable to design new programming languages.  Recently
+it hasn't been.  But I think server-based software will make new  
+languages fashionable again.  With server-based software, you can
+use any language you want, so if someone does design a language that
+actually seems better than others that are available, there will be
+people who take a risk and use it.2. Time-Sharing.Richard Kelsey gave this as an idea whose time
+has come again in the last panel, and I completely agree with him.
+My guess (and Microsoft's guess, it seems) is that much computing
+will move from the desktop onto remote servers.  In other words,  
+time-sharing is back.  And I think there will need to be support
+for it at the language level.  For example, I know that Richard
+and Jonathan Rees have done a lot of work implementing process  
+scheduling within Scheme 48.3. Efficiency.Recently it was starting to seem that computers
+were finally fast enough.  More and more we were starting to hear
+about byte code, which implies to me at least that we feel we have
+cycles to spare.  But I don't think we will, with server-based
+software.   Someone is going to have to pay for the servers that
+the software runs on, and the number of users they can support per
+machine will be the divisor of their capital cost.So I think efficiency will matter, at least in computational
+bottlenecks.  It will be especially important to do i/o fast,
+because server-based applications do a lot of i/o.It may turn out that byte code is not a win, in the end.  Sun and
+Microsoft seem to be facing off in a kind of a battle of the byte
+codes at the moment.  But they're doing it because byte code is a
+convenient place to insert themselves into the process, not because
+byte code is in itself a good idea.  It may turn out that this
+whole battleground gets bypassed.  That would be kind of amusing.1. Clients.This is just a guess, but my guess is that
+the winning model for most applications will be purely server-based.
+Designing software that works on the assumption that everyone will 
+have your client is like designing a society on the assumption that
+everyone will just be honest.  It would certainly be convenient, but
+you have to assume it will never happen.I think there will be a proliferation of devices that have some
+kind of Web access, and all you'll be able to assume about them is
+that they can support simple html and forms.  Will you have a
+browser on your cell phone?  Will there be a phone in your palm  
+pilot?  Will your blackberry get a bigger screen? Will you be able
+to browse the Web on your gameboy?  Your watch?  I don't know.  
+And I don't have to know if I bet on
+everything just being on the server.  It's
+just so much more robust to have all the 
+brains on the server.2. Object-Oriented Programming.I realize this is a
+controversial one, but I don't think object-oriented programming
+is such a big deal.  I think it is a fine model for certain kinds
+of applications that need that specific kind of data structure,   
+like window systems, simulations, and cad programs.  But I don't
+see why it ought to be the model for all programming.I think part of the reason people in big companies like object-oriented
+programming is because it yields a lot of what looks like work.
+Something that might naturally be represented as, say, a list of
+integers, can now be represented as a class with all kinds of
+scaffolding and hustle and bustle.Another attraction of
+object-oriented programming is that methods give you some of the
+effect of first class functions.  But this is old news to Lisp
+programmers.  When you have actual first class functions, you can
+just use them in whatever way is appropriate to the task at hand,
+instead of forcing everything into a mold of classes and methods.What this means for language design, I think, is that you shouldn't
+build object-oriented programming in too deeply.  Maybe the
+answer is to offer more general, underlying stuff, and let people design
+whatever object systems they want as libraries.3. Design by Committee.Having your language designed by a committee is a big pitfall,  
+and not just for the reasons everyone knows about.  Everyone
+knows that committees tend to yield lumpy, inconsistent designs.  
+But I think a greater danger is that they won't take risks.
+When one person is in charge he can take risks
+that a committee would never agree on.Is it necessary to take risks to design a good language though?
+Many people might suspect
+that language design is something where you should stick fairly
+close to the conventional wisdom.  I bet this isn't true.
+In everything else people do, reward is proportionate to risk.
+Why should language design be any different?

PaulGrahamEssays/laundry.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,487 @@
+October 2004
+As E. B. White said, "good writing is rewriting."  I didn't
+realize this when I was in school.  In writing, as in math and 
+science, they only show you the finished product.
+You don't see all the false starts.  This gives students a
+misleading view of how things get made.Part of the reason it happens is that writers don't want   
+people to see their mistakes.  But I'm willing to let people
+see an early draft if it will show how much you have
+to rewrite to beat an essay into shape.Below is the oldest version I can find of
+The Age of the Essay   
+(probably the second or third day), with
+text that ultimately survived in 
+red and text that later
+got deleted in gray.
+There seem to be several categories of cuts: things I got wrong,
+things that seem like bragging, flames,
+digressions, stretches of awkward prose, and unnecessary words.I discarded more from the beginning.  That's
+not surprising; it takes a while to hit your stride.  There
+are more digressions at the start, because I'm not sure where
+I'm heading.The amount of cutting is about average.  I probably write
+three to four words for every one that appears in the final
+version of an essay.(Before anyone gets mad at me for opinions expressed here, remember
+that anything you see here that's not in the final version is obviously
+something I chose not to publish, often because I disagree
+with it.)
+Recently a friend said that what he liked about
+my essays was that they weren't written the way
+we'd been taught to write essays in school.  You
+remember: topic sentence, introductory paragraph,
+supporting paragraphs, conclusion.  It hadn't
+occurred to me till then that those horrible things
+we had to write in school were even connected to
+what I was doing now.  But sure enough, I thought,
+they did call them "essays," didn't they?Well, they're not.  Those things you have to write
+in school are not only not essays, they're one of the
+most pointless of all the pointless hoops you have
+to jump through in school.  And I worry that they
+not only teach students the wrong things about writing,
+but put them off writing entirely.So I'm going to give the other side of the story: what
+an essay really is, and how you write one.  Or at least,
+how I write one.  Students be forewarned: if you actually write
+the kind of essay I describe, you'll probably get bad
+grades.  But knowing how it's really done should
+at least help you to understand the feeling of futility
+you have when you're writing the things they tell you to.
+The most obvious difference between real essays and
+the things one has to write in school is that real
+essays are not exclusively about English literature.
+It's a fine thing for schools to
+
+teach students how to
+write.  But for some bizarre reason (actually, a very specific bizarre
+reason that I'll explain in a moment),
+
+the teaching of
+writing has gotten mixed together with the study
+of literature.  And so all over the country, students are
+writing not about how a baseball team with a small budget 
+might compete with the Yankees, or the role of color in
+fashion, or what constitutes a good dessert, but about
+symbolism in Dickens.With obvious 
+results.  Only a few people really
+
+care about
+symbolism in Dickens.  The teacher doesn't.
+The students don't.  Most of the people who've had to write PhD
+disserations about Dickens don't.  And certainly
+
+Dickens himself would be more interested in an essay
+about color or baseball.How did things get this way?  To answer that we have to go back
+almost a thousand years.  Between about 500 and 1000, life was
+not very good in Europe.  The term "dark ages" is presently
+out of fashion as too judgemental (the period wasn't dark; 
+it was just different), but if this label didn't already
+exist, it would seem an inspired metaphor.  What little
+original thought there was took place in lulls between
+constant wars and had something of the character of
+the thoughts of parents with a new baby.
+The most amusing thing written during this
+period, Liudprand of Cremona's Embassy to Constantinople, is,
+I suspect, mostly inadvertantly so.Around 1000 Europe began to catch its breath.
+And once they
+had the luxury of curiosity, one of the first things they discovered
+was what we call "the classics."
+Imagine if we were visited  
+by aliens.  If they could even get here they'd presumably know a
+few things we don't.  Immediately Alien Studies would become
+the most dynamic field of scholarship: instead of painstakingly
+discovering things for ourselves, we could simply suck up
+everything they'd discovered.  So it was in Europe in 1200.
+When classical texts began to circulate in Europe, they contained
+not just new answers, but new questions.  (If anyone proved
+a theorem in christian Europe before 1200, for example, there
+is no record of it.)For a couple centuries, some of the most important work
+being done was intellectual archaelogy.  Those were also
+the centuries during which schools were first established.
+And since reading ancient texts was the essence of what
+scholars did then, it became the basis of the curriculum.By 1700, someone who wanted to learn about
+physics didn't need to start by mastering Greek in order to read Aristotle.  But schools
+change slower than scholarship: the study of
+ancient texts
+had such prestige that it remained the backbone of 
+education
+until the late 19th century.  By then it was merely a tradition.
+It did serve some purposes: reading a foreign language was difficult,
+and thus taught discipline, or at least, kept students busy;
+it introduced students to
+cultures quite different from their own; and its very uselessness
+made it function (like white gloves) as a social bulwark.
+But it certainly wasn't
+true, and hadn't been true for centuries, that students were
+serving apprenticeships in the hottest area of scholarship.Classical scholarship had also changed.  In the early era, philology
+actually mattered.  The texts that filtered into Europe were
+all corrupted to some degree by the errors of translators and
+copyists.  Scholars had to figure out what Aristotle said
+before they could figure out what he meant.  But by the modern
+era such questions were answered as well as they were ever
+going to be.  And so the study of ancient texts became less
+about ancientness and more about texts.The time was then ripe for the question: if the study of
+ancient texts is a valid field for scholarship, why not modern
+texts?  The answer, of course, is that the raison d'etre
+of classical scholarship was a kind of intellectual archaelogy that
+does not need to be done in the case of contemporary authors.
+But for obvious reasons no one wanted to give that answer.
+The archaeological work being mostly done, it implied that
+the people studying the classics were, if not wasting their
+time, at least working on problems of minor importance.And so began the study of modern literature. There was some
+initial resistance, but it didn't last long.
+The limiting
+reagent in the growth of university departments is what
+parents will let undergraduates study.  If parents will let
+their children major in x, the rest follows straightforwardly.
+There will be jobs teaching x, and professors to fill them.
+The professors will establish scholarly journals and publish
+one another's papers.  Universities with x departments will
+subscribe to the journals.  Graduate students who want jobs
+as professors of x will write dissertations about it.  It may
+take a good long while for the more prestigious universities
+to cave in and establish departments in cheesier xes,  but
+at the other end of the scale there are so many universities
+competing to attract students that the mere establishment of
+a discipline requires little more than the desire to do it.High schools imitate universities.
+And so once university
+English departments were established in the late nineteenth century,
+the 'riting component of the 3 Rs 
+was morphed into English.
+With the bizarre consequence that high school students now
+had to write about English literature-- to write, without
+even realizing it, imitations of whatever
+English professors had been publishing in their journals a
+few decades before.   It's no wonder if this seems to the
+student a pointless exercise, because we're now three steps
+removed from real work: the students are imitating English
+professors, who are imitating classical scholars, who are
+merely the inheritors of a tradition growing out of what
+was, 700 years ago, fascinating and urgently needed work.Perhaps high schools should drop English and just teach writing.
+The valuable part of English classes is learning to write, and
+that could be taught better by itself.  Students learn better
+when they're interested in what they're doing, and it's hard
+to imagine a topic less interesting than symbolism in Dickens.
+Most of the people who write about that sort of thing professionally
+are not really interested in it.  (Though indeed, it's been a
+while since they were writing about symbolism; now they're
+writing about gender.)I have no illusions about how eagerly this suggestion will  
+be adopted.  Public schools probably couldn't stop teaching
+English even if they wanted to; they're probably required to by
+law.  But here's a related suggestion that goes with the grain
+instead of against it: that universities establish a
+writing major.  Many of the students who now major in English
+would major in writing if they could, and most would
+be better off.It will be argued that it is a good thing for students to be
+exposed to their literary heritage.  Certainly.  But is that
+more important than that they learn to write well?  And are
+English classes even the place to do it?  After all,
+the average public high school student gets zero exposure to  
+his artistic heritage.  No disaster results.
+The people who are interested in art learn about it for
+themselves, and those who aren't don't.  I find that American
+adults are no better or worse informed about literature than
+art, despite the fact that they spent years studying literature
+in high school and no time at all studying art.  Which presumably
+means that what they're taught in school is rounding error 
+compared to what they pick up on their own.Indeed, English classes may even be harmful.  In my case they
+were effectively aversion therapy.  Want to make someone dislike
+a book?  Force him to read it and write an essay about it.
+And make the topic so intellectually bogus that you
+could not, if asked, explain why one ought to write about it.
+I love to read more than anything, but by the end of high school
+I never read the books we were assigned.  I was so disgusted with
+what we were doing that it became a point of honor
+with me to write nonsense at least as good at the other students'
+without having more than glanced over the book to learn the names
+of the characters and a few random events in it.I hoped this might be fixed in college, but I found the same
+problem there.  It was not the teachers.  It was English.   
+We were supposed to read novels and write essays about them.
+About what, and why?  That no one seemed to be able to explain.
+Eventually by trial and error I found that what the teacher  
+wanted us to do was pretend that the story had really taken
+place, and to analyze based on what the characters said and did (the
+subtler clues, the better) what their motives must have been.
+One got extra credit for motives having to do with class,
+as I suspect one must now for those involving gender and  
+sexuality.  I learned how to churn out such stuff well enough
+to get an A, but I never took another English class.And the books we did these disgusting things to, like those
+we mishandled in high school, I find still have black marks
+against them in my mind.  The one saving grace was that   
+English courses tend to favor pompous, dull writers like
+Henry James, who deserve black marks against their names anyway.
+One of the principles the IRS uses in deciding whether to
+allow deductions is that, if something is fun, it isn't work.
+Fields that are intellectually unsure of themselves rely on
+a similar principle.  Reading P.G. Wodehouse or Evelyn Waugh or
+Raymond Chandler is too obviously pleasing to seem like
+serious work, as reading Shakespeare would have been before 
+English evolved enough to make it an effort to understand him. [sh]
+And so good writers (just you wait and see who's still in
+print in 300 years) are less likely to have readers turned   
+against them by clumsy, self-appointed tour guides.
+The other big difference between a real essay and the 
+things
+they make you write in school is that a real essay doesn't 
+take a position and then defend it.  That principle,
+like the idea that we ought to be writing about literature,   
+turns out to be another intellectual hangover of long
+forgotten origins.  It's often mistakenly believed that
+medieval universities were mostly seminaries.  In fact they
+were more law schools.  And at least in our tradition
+lawyers are advocates: they are
+trained to be able to
+take
+either side of an argument and make as good a case for it  
+as they can. Whether or not this is a good idea (in the case of prosecutors,
+it probably isn't), it tended to pervade
+the atmosphere of
+early universities.  After the lecture the most common form
+of discussion was the disputation.  This idea
+is at least
+nominally preserved in our present-day thesis defense-- indeed,
+in the very word thesis.  Most people treat the words 
+thesis
+and dissertation as interchangeable, but originally, at least,
+a thesis was a position one took and the dissertation was
+the argument by which one defended it.I'm not complaining that we blur these two words together.
+As far as I'm concerned, the sooner we lose the original
+sense of the word thesis, the better.  For many, perhaps most,  
+graduate students, it is stuffing a square peg into a round
+hole to try to recast one's work as a single thesis.  And
+as for the disputation, that seems clearly a net lose.
+Arguing two sides of a case may be a necessary evil in a
+legal dispute, but it's not the best way to get at the truth,
+as I think lawyers would be the first to admit.
+And yet this principle is built into the very structure of  
+the essays
+they teach you to write in high school.  The topic
+sentence is your thesis, chosen in advance, the supporting 
+paragraphs the blows you strike in the conflict, and the
+conclusion--- uh, what it the conclusion?  I was never sure  
+about that in high school.  If your thesis was well expressed,
+what need was there to restate it?  In theory it seemed that
+the conclusion of a really good essay ought not to need to   
+say any more than QED.
+But when you understand the origins
+of this sort of "essay", you can see where the
+conclusion comes from.  It's the concluding remarks to the 
+jury.
+What other alternative is there?  To answer that
+we have to
+reach back into history again, though this time not so far.
+To Michel de Montaigne, inventor of the essay.
+He was
+doing something quite different from what a
+lawyer does,
+and
+the difference is embodied in the name.  Essayer is the French
+verb meaning "to try" (the cousin of our word assay),
+
+and an "essai" is an effort.
+An essay is something you
+write in order
+to figure something out.Figure out what?  You don't know yet.  And so you can't begin with a
+thesis, because you don't have one, and may never have 
+one.  An essay doesn't begin with a statement, but with a  
+question.  In a real essay, you don't take a position and
+defend it.  You see a door that's ajar, and you open it and
+walk in to see what's inside.If all you want to do is figure things out, why do you need
+to write anything, though?  Why not just sit and think?  Well,
+there precisely is Montaigne's great discovery.  Expressing
+ideas helps to form them.  Indeed, helps is far too weak a
+word.  90%
+of what ends up in my essays was stuff
+I only
+thought of when I sat down to write them.  That's why I
+write them.So there's another difference between essays and
+the things
+you have to write in school.   In school
+
+you are, in theory,
+explaining yourself to someone else.  In the best case---if
+you're really organized---you're just writing it down.
+In a real essay you're writing for yourself.  You're
+thinking out loud.But not quite.  Just as inviting people over forces you to
+clean up your apartment, writing something that you know
+
+other people will read forces you to think well.  So it
+does matter to have an audience.  The things I've written
+just for myself are no good.  Indeed, they're bad in
+a particular way:
+they tend to peter out.  When I run into
+difficulties, I notice that I
+tend to conclude with a few vague
+questions and then drift off to get a cup of tea.This seems a common problem.
+It's practically the standard
+ending in blog entries--- with the addition of a "heh" or an 
+emoticon, prompted by the all too accurate sense that
+something is missing.And indeed, a lot of
+published essays peter out in this
+same way.
+Particularly the sort written by the staff writers of newsmagazines.  Outside writers tend to supply
+editorials of the defend-a-position variety, which
+make a beeline toward a rousing (and
+foreordained) conclusion.   But the staff writers feel
+obliged to write something more
+balanced, which in
+practice ends up meaning blurry.
+Since they're
+writing for a popular magazine, they start with the
+most radioactively controversial questions, from which
+(because they're writing for a popular magazine)
+they then proceed to recoil from
+in terror.
+Gay marriage, for or
+against?  This group says one thing.  That group says
+another.  One thing is certain: the question is a
+complex one.  (But don't get mad at us.  We didn't
+draw any conclusions.)Questions aren't enough.  An essay has to come up with answers.
+They don't always, of course.  Sometimes you start with a  
+promising question and get nowhere.  But those you don't
+publish.  Those are like experiments that get inconclusive
+results.   Something you publish ought to tell the reader  
+something he didn't already know.
+But what you tell him doesn't matter, so long as   
+it's interesting.  I'm sometimes accused of meandering.
+In defend-a-position writing that would be a flaw.
+There you're not concerned with truth.  You already
+know where you're going, and you want to go straight there,
+blustering through obstacles, and hand-waving
+your way across swampy ground.  But that's not what
+you're trying to do in an essay.  An essay is supposed to
+be a search for truth.  It would be suspicious if it didn't
+meander.The Meander is a river in Asia Minor (aka
+Turkey).
+As you might expect, it winds all over the place.
+But does it
+do this out of frivolity?   Quite the opposite.
+Like all rivers, it's rigorously following the laws of physics.
+The path it has discovered,
+winding as it is, represents
+the most economical route to the sea.The river's algorithm is simple.  At each step, flow down.
+For the essayist this translates to: flow interesting.
+Of all the places to go next, choose
+whichever seems
+most interesting.I'm pushing this metaphor a bit.  An essayist
+can't have
+quite as little foresight as a river.  In fact what you do
+(or what I do) is somewhere between a river and a roman
+road-builder.  I have a general idea of the direction
+I want to go in, and
+I choose the next topic with that in mind.  This essay is
+about writing, so I do occasionally yank it back in that
+direction, but it is not all the sort of essay I
+thought I was going to write about writing.Note too that hill-climbing (which is what this algorithm is
+called) can get you in trouble.
+Sometimes, just
+like a river,
+you
+run up against a blank wall.  What
+I do then is just 
+what the river does: backtrack.
+At one point in this essay
+I found that after following a certain thread I ran out
+of ideas.  I had to go back n
+paragraphs and start over
+in another direction.  For illustrative purposes I've left
+the abandoned branch as a footnote.
+Err on the side of the river.  An essay is not a reference
+work.  It's not something you read looking for a specific
+answer, and feel cheated if you don't find it.  I'd much
+rather read an essay that went off in an unexpected but
+interesting direction than one that plodded dutifully along
+a prescribed course.So what's interesting?  For me, interesting means surprise.
+Design, as Matz
+has said, should follow the principle of
+least surprise.
+A button that looks like it will make a
+machine stop should make it stop, not speed up.  Essays
+should do the opposite.  Essays should aim for maximum
+surprise.I was afraid of flying for a long time and could only travel
+vicariously.  When friends came back from faraway places,
+it wasn't just out of politeness that I asked them about
+their trip.
+I really wanted to know.  And I found that
+the best way to get information out of them was to ask
+what surprised them.  How was the place different from what
+they expected?  This is an extremely useful question.
+You can ask it of even
+the most unobservant people, and it will
+extract information they didn't even know they were
+recording. Indeed, you can ask it in real time.  Now when I go somewhere
+new, I make a note of what surprises me about it.  Sometimes I
+even make a conscious effort to visualize the place beforehand,
+so I'll have a detailed image to diff with reality.
+Surprises are facts
+you didn't already 
+know.
+But they're
+more than that.  They're facts
+that contradict things you
+thought you knew.  And so they're the most valuable sort of
+fact you can get.  They're like a food that's not merely
+healthy, but counteracts the unhealthy effects of things
+you've already eaten.
+How do you find surprises?  Well, therein lies half
+the work of essay writing.  (The other half is expressing
+yourself well.)   You can at least
+use yourself as a
+proxy for the reader.  You should only write about things
+you've thought about a lot.  And anything you come across
+that surprises you, who've thought about the topic a lot,
+will probably surprise most readers.For example, in a recent essay I pointed out that because
+you can only judge computer programmers by working with
+them, no one knows in programming who the heroes should
+be.
+I
+certainly
+didn't realize this when I started writing
+the 
+essay, and even now I find it kind of weird.  That's
+what you're looking for.So if you want to write essays, you need two ingredients:
+you need
+a few topics that you think about a lot, and you
+need some ability to ferret out the unexpected.What should you think about?  My guess is that it
+doesn't matter.  Almost everything is
+interesting if you get deeply
+enough into it.  The one possible exception
+are
+things
+like working in fast food, which
+have deliberately had all
+the variation sucked out of them.
+In retrospect, was there
+anything interesting about working in Baskin-Robbins?
+Well, it was interesting to notice
+how important color was
+to the customers.  Kids a certain age would point into
+the case and say that they wanted yellow.  Did they want
+French Vanilla or Lemon?  They would just look at you
+blankly.  They wanted yellow.  And then there was the
+mystery of why the perennial favorite Pralines n' Cream
+was so appealing. I'm inclined now to
+think it was the salt.
+And the mystery of why Passion Fruit tasted so disgusting.
+People would order it because of the name, and were always
+disappointed.  It should have been called In-sink-erator
+Fruit.
+And there was
+the difference in the way fathers and
+mothers bought ice cream for their kids.
+Fathers tended to
+adopt the attitude of
+benevolent kings bestowing largesse,
+and mothers that of
+harried bureaucrats,
+giving in to
+pressure against their better judgement.
+So, yes, there does seem to be material, even in
+fast food.What about the other half, ferreting out the unexpected?
+That may require some natural ability.  I've noticed for
+a long time that I'm pathologically observant.  ....[That was as far as I'd gotten at the time.]Notes[sh] In Shakespeare's own time, serious writing meant theological
+discourses, not the bawdy plays acted over on the other  
+side of the river among the bear gardens and whorehouses.The other extreme, the work that seems formidable from the moment
+it's created (indeed, is deliberately intended to be)
+is represented by Milton.  Like the Aeneid, Paradise Lost is a
+rock imitating a butterfly that happened to get fossilized.
+Even Samuel Johnson seems to have balked at this, on the one  
+hand paying Milton the compliment of an extensive biography,
+and on the other writing of Paradise Lost that "none who read it
+ever wished it longer."

PaulGrahamEssays/love.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,376 @@
+
+
+Want to start a startup?  Get funded by
+Y Combinator.
+
+
+
+
+January 2006To do something well you have to like it.   That idea is not exactly
+novel.  We've got it down to four words: "Do what you love."  But
+it's not enough just to tell people that.  Doing what you love is
+complicated.The very idea is foreign to what most of us learn as kids.  When I
+was a kid, it seemed as if work and fun were opposites by definition.
+Life had two states: some of the time adults were making you do
+things, and that was called work; the rest of the time you could
+do what you wanted, and that was called playing.  Occasionally the
+things adults made you do were fun, just as, occasionally, playing
+wasn't—for example, if you fell and hurt yourself.  But except
+for these few anomalous cases, work was pretty much defined as
+not-fun.And it did not seem to be an accident. School, it was implied, was
+tedious because it was preparation for grownup work.The world then was divided into two groups, grownups and kids.
+Grownups, like some kind of cursed race, had to work.  Kids didn't,
+but they did have to go to school, which was a dilute version of
+work meant to prepare us for the real thing.  Much as we disliked
+school, the grownups all agreed that grownup work was worse, and
+that we had it easy.Teachers in particular all seemed to believe implicitly that work
+was not fun.  Which is not surprising: work wasn't fun for most of
+them.  Why did we have to memorize state capitals instead of playing
+dodgeball?  For the same reason they had to watch over a bunch of
+kids instead of lying on a beach.  You couldn't just do what you
+wanted.I'm not saying we should let little kids do whatever they want.
+They may have to be made to work on certain things.  But if we make
+kids work on dull stuff, it might be wise to tell them that tediousness
+is not the defining quality of work, and indeed that the reason
+they have to work on dull stuff now is so they can work on more
+interesting stuff later.
+[1]Once, when I was about 9 or 10, my father told me I could be whatever
+I wanted when I grew up, so long as I enjoyed it.  I remember that
+precisely because it seemed so anomalous.  It was like being told
+to use dry water.  Whatever I thought he meant, I didn't think he
+meant work could literally be fun—fun like playing.  It
+took me years to grasp that.JobsBy high school, the prospect of an actual job was on the horizon.
+Adults would sometimes come to speak to us about their work, or we
+would go to see them at work.  It was always understood that they
+enjoyed what they did.  In retrospect I think one may have: the
+private jet pilot.  But I don't think the bank manager really did.The main reason they all acted as if they enjoyed their work was
+presumably the upper-middle class convention that you're supposed
+to.  It would not merely be bad for your career to say that you
+despised your job, but a social faux-pas.Why is it conventional to pretend to like what you do?  The first
+sentence of this essay explains that.  If you have to like something
+to do it well, then the most successful people will all like what
+they do.  That's where the upper-middle class tradition comes from.
+Just as houses all over America are full of 
+chairs
+that are, without
+the owners even knowing it, nth-degree imitations of chairs designed
+250 years ago for French kings, conventional attitudes about work
+are, without the owners even knowing it, nth-degree imitations of
+the attitudes of people who've done great things.What a recipe for alienation.  By the time they reach an age to
+think about what they'd like to do, most kids have been thoroughly
+misled about the idea of loving one's work.  School has trained
+them to regard work as an unpleasant duty.  Having a job is said
+to be even more onerous than schoolwork.  And yet all the adults
+claim to like what they do.  You can't blame kids for thinking "I
+am not like these people; I am not suited to this world."Actually they've been told three lies: the stuff they've been taught
+to regard as work in school is not real work; grownup work is not
+(necessarily) worse than schoolwork; and many of the adults around
+them are lying when they say they like what they do.The most dangerous liars can be the kids' own parents.  If you take
+a boring job to give your family a high standard of living, as so
+many people do, you risk infecting your kids with the idea that
+work is boring. 
+[2]
+Maybe it would be better for kids in this one
+case if parents were not so unselfish.  A parent who set an example
+of loving their work might help their kids more than an expensive
+house.
+[3]It was not till I was in college that the idea of work finally broke
+free from the idea of making a living.  Then the important question
+became not how to make money, but what to work on.  Ideally these
+coincided, but some spectacular boundary cases (like Einstein in
+the patent office) proved they weren't identical.The definition of work was now to make some original contribution
+to the world, and in the process not to starve.  But after the habit
+of so many years my idea of work still included a large component
+of pain.  Work still seemed to require discipline, because only
+hard problems yielded grand results, and hard problems couldn't
+literally be fun.   Surely one had to force oneself to work on them.If you think something's supposed to hurt, you're less likely to
+notice if you're doing it wrong.  That about sums up my experience
+of graduate school.BoundsHow much are you supposed to like what you do?  Unless you
+know that, you don't know when to stop searching. And if, like most
+people, you underestimate it, you'll tend to stop searching too
+early.  You'll end up doing something chosen for you by your parents,
+or the desire to make money, or prestige—or sheer inertia.Here's an upper bound: Do what you love doesn't mean, do what you
+would like to do most this second.  Even Einstein probably
+had moments when he wanted to have a cup of coffee, but told himself
+he ought to finish what he was working on first.It used to perplex me when I read about people who liked what they
+did so much that there was nothing they'd rather do.  There didn't
+seem to be any sort of work I liked that much.  If I had a
+choice of (a) spending the next hour working on something or (b)
+be teleported to Rome and spend the next hour wandering about, was
+there any sort of work I'd prefer?  Honestly, no.But the fact is, almost anyone would rather, at any given moment,
+float about in the Carribbean, or have sex, or eat some delicious
+food, than work on hard problems.  The rule about doing what you
+love assumes a certain length of time.  It doesn't mean, do what
+will make you happiest this second, but what will make you happiest
+over some longer period, like a week or a month.Unproductive pleasures pall eventually.  After a while you get tired
+of lying on the beach.  If you want to stay happy, you have to do
+something.As a lower bound, you have to like your work more than any unproductive
+pleasure.  You have to like what you do enough that the concept of
+"spare time" seems mistaken.  Which is not to say you have to spend
+all your time working.  You can only work so much before you get
+tired and start to screw up.  Then you want to do something else—even something mindless.  But you don't regard this time as the
+prize and the time you spend working as the pain you endure to earn
+it.I put the lower bound there for practical reasons.  If your work
+is not your favorite thing to do, you'll have terrible problems
+with procrastination.  You'll have to force yourself to work,  and
+when you resort to that the results are distinctly inferior.To be happy I think you have to be doing something you not only
+enjoy, but admire.  You have to be able to say, at the end, wow,
+that's pretty cool.  This doesn't mean you have to make something.
+If you learn how to hang glide, or to speak a foreign language
+fluently, that will be enough to make you say, for a while at least,
+wow, that's pretty cool.  What there has to be is a test.So one thing that falls just short of the standard, I think, is
+reading books.  Except for some books in math and the hard sciences,
+there's no test of how well you've read a book, and that's why
+merely reading books doesn't quite feel like work.  You have to do
+something with what you've read to feel productive.I think the best test is one Gino Lee taught me: to try to do things
+that would make your friends say wow.  But it probably wouldn't
+start to work properly till about age 22, because most people haven't
+had a big enough sample to pick friends from before then.SirensWhat you should not do, I think, is worry about the opinion of
+anyone beyond your friends.  You shouldn't worry about prestige.
+Prestige is the opinion of the rest of the world.  When you can ask
+the opinions of people whose judgement you respect, what does it
+add to consider the opinions of people you don't even know? 
+[4]This is easy advice to give.  It's hard to follow, especially when
+you're young.  
+[5]
+Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps
+even your beliefs about what you enjoy.  It causes you to work not
+on what you like, but what you'd like to like.That's what leads people to try to write novels, for example.  They
+like reading novels.  They notice that people who write them win
+Nobel prizes.  What could be more wonderful, they think, than to
+be a novelist?  But liking the idea of being a novelist is not
+enough; you have to like the actual work of novel-writing if you're
+going to be good at it; you have to like making up elaborate lies.Prestige is just fossilized inspiration.  If you do anything well
+enough, you'll make it prestigious.  Plenty of things we now
+consider prestigious were anything but at first.  Jazz comes to
+mind—though almost any established art form would do.   So just
+do what you like, and let prestige take care of itself.Prestige is especially dangerous to the ambitious.  If you want to
+make ambitious people waste their time on errands, the way to do
+it is to bait the hook with prestige.  That's the recipe for getting
+people to give talks, write forewords, serve on committees, be
+department heads, and so on.  It might be a good rule simply to
+avoid any prestigious task. If it didn't suck, they wouldn't have
+had to make it prestigious.Similarly, if you admire two kinds of work equally, but one is more
+prestigious, you should probably choose the other.  Your opinions
+about what's admirable are always going to be slightly influenced
+by prestige, so if the two seem equal to you, you probably have
+more genuine admiration for the less prestigious one.The other big force leading people astray is money.  Money by itself
+is not that dangerous.  When something pays well but is regarded
+with contempt, like telemarketing, or prostitution, or personal
+injury litigation, ambitious people aren't tempted by it.  That
+kind of work ends up being done by people who are "just trying to
+make a living."  (Tip: avoid any field whose practitioners say
+this.)  The danger is when money is combined with prestige, as in,
+say, corporate law, or medicine.  A comparatively safe and prosperous
+career with some automatic baseline prestige is dangerously tempting
+to someone young, who hasn't thought much about what they really
+like.The test of whether people love what they do is whether they'd do
+it even if they weren't paid for it—even if they had to work at
+another job to make a living.  How many corporate lawyers would do
+their current work if they had to do it for free, in their spare
+time, and take day jobs as waiters to support themselves?This test is especially helpful in deciding between different kinds
+of academic work, because fields vary greatly in this respect.  Most
+good mathematicians would work on math even if there were no jobs
+as math professors, whereas in the departments at the other end of
+the spectrum, the availability of teaching jobs is the driver:
+people would rather be English professors than work in ad agencies,
+and publishing papers is the way you compete for such jobs.  Math
+would happen without math departments, but it is the existence of
+English majors, and therefore jobs teaching them, that calls into
+being all those thousands of dreary papers about gender and identity
+in the novels of Conrad.  No one does 
+that 
+kind of thing for fun.The advice of parents will tend to err on the side of money.  It
+seems safe to say there are more undergrads who want to be novelists
+and whose parents want them to be doctors than who want to be doctors
+and whose parents want them to be novelists.  The kids think their
+parents are "materialistic." Not necessarily.  All parents tend to
+be more conservative for their kids than they would for themselves,
+simply because, as parents, they share risks more than rewards.  If
+your eight year old son decides to climb a tall tree, or your teenage
+daughter decides to date the local bad boy, you won't get a share
+in the excitement, but if your son falls, or your daughter gets
+pregnant, you'll have to deal with the consequences.DisciplineWith such powerful forces leading us astray, it's not surprising
+we find it so hard to discover what we like to work on.  Most people
+are doomed in childhood by accepting the axiom that work = pain.
+Those who escape this are nearly all lured onto the rocks by prestige
+or money.  How many even discover something they love to work on?
+A few hundred thousand, perhaps, out of billions.It's hard to find work you love; it must be, if so few do.  So don't
+underestimate this task.  And don't feel bad if you haven't succeeded
+yet.  In fact, if you admit to yourself that you're discontented,
+you're a step ahead of most people, who are still in denial.  If
+you're surrounded by colleagues who claim to enjoy work that you
+find contemptible, odds are they're lying to themselves.  Not
+necessarily, but probably.Although doing great work takes less discipline than people think—because the way to do great work is to find something you like so
+much that you don't have to force yourself to do it—finding
+work you love does usually require discipline.   Some people are
+lucky enough to know what they want to do when they're 12, and just
+glide along as if they were on railroad tracks.  But this seems the
+exception.  More often people who do great things have careers with
+the trajectory of a ping-pong ball.  They go to school to study A,
+drop out and get a job doing B, and then become famous for C after
+taking it up on the side.Sometimes jumping from one sort of work to another is a sign of
+energy, and sometimes it's a sign of laziness.  Are you dropping
+out, or boldly carving a new path?  You often can't tell yourself.
+Plenty of people who will later do great things seem to be disappointments
+early on, when they're trying to find their niche.Is there some test you can use to keep yourself honest?  One is to
+try to do a good job at whatever you're doing, even if you don't
+like it.  Then at least you'll know you're not using dissatisfaction
+as an excuse for being lazy.  Perhaps more importantly, you'll get
+into the habit of doing things well.Another test you can use is: always produce.  For example, if you
+have a day job you don't take seriously because you plan to be a
+novelist, are you producing?  Are you writing pages of fiction,
+however bad?  As long as you're producing, you'll know you're not
+merely using the hazy vision of the grand novel you plan to write
+one day as an opiate.  The view of it will be obstructed by the all
+too palpably flawed one you're actually writing."Always produce" is also a heuristic for finding the work you love.
+If you subject yourself to that constraint, it will automatically
+push you away from things you think you're supposed to work on,
+toward things you actually like.  "Always produce" will discover
+your life's work the way water, with the aid of gravity, finds the
+hole in your roof.Of course, figuring out what you like to work on doesn't mean you
+get to work on it.  That's a separate question.  And if you're
+ambitious you have to keep them separate: you have to make a conscious
+effort to keep your ideas about what you want from being contaminated
+by what seems possible. 
+[6]It's painful to keep them apart, because it's painful to observe
+the gap between them. So most people pre-emptively lower their
+expectations.  For example, if you asked random people on the street
+if they'd like to be able to draw like Leonardo, you'd find most
+would say something like "Oh, I can't draw."  This is more a statement
+of intention than fact; it means, I'm not going to try.  Because
+the fact is, if you took a random person off the street and somehow
+got them to work as hard as they possibly could at drawing for the
+next twenty years, they'd get surprisingly far.  But it would require
+a great moral effort; it would mean staring failure in the eye every
+day for years.  And so to protect themselves people say "I can't."Another related line you often hear is that not everyone can do
+work they love—that someone has to do the unpleasant jobs.  Really?
+How do you make them?  In the US the only mechanism for forcing
+people to do unpleasant jobs is the draft, and that hasn't been
+invoked for over 30 years.  All we can do is encourage people to
+do unpleasant work, with money and prestige.If there's something people still won't do, it seems as if society
+just has to make do without.  That's what happened with domestic
+servants.  For millennia that was the canonical example of a job
+"someone had to do."  And yet in the mid twentieth century servants
+practically disappeared in rich countries, and the rich have just
+had to do without.So while there may be some things someone has to do, there's a good
+chance anyone saying that about any particular job is mistaken.
+Most unpleasant jobs would either get automated or go undone if no
+one were willing to do them.Two RoutesThere's another sense of "not everyone can do work they love"
+that's all too true, however.  One has to make a living, and it's
+hard to get paid for doing work you love.  There are two routes to
+that destination:
+
+  The organic route: as you become more eminent, gradually to
+  increase the parts of your job that you like at the expense of
+  those you don't.The two-job route: to work at things you don't like to get money
+  to work on things you do.
+
+The organic route is more common.  It happens naturally to anyone
+who does good work.  A young architect has to take whatever work
+he can get, but if he does well he'll gradually be in a position
+to pick and choose among projects.  The disadvantage of this route
+is that it's slow and uncertain.  Even tenure is not real freedom.The two-job route has several variants depending on how long you
+work for money at a time.  At one extreme is the "day job," where
+you work regular hours at one job to make money, and work on what
+you love in your spare time.  At the other extreme you work at
+something till you make enough not to 
+have to work for money again.The two-job route is less common than the organic route, because
+it requires a deliberate choice.  It's also more dangerous.  Life
+tends to get more expensive as you get older, so it's easy to get
+sucked into working longer than you expected at the money job.
+Worse still, anything you work on changes you.  If you work too
+long on tedious stuff, it will rot your brain.  And the best paying
+jobs are most dangerous, because they require your full attention.The advantage of the two-job route is that it lets you jump over
+obstacles.  The landscape of possible jobs isn't flat; there are
+walls of varying heights between different kinds of work. 
+[7]
+The trick of maximizing the parts of your job that you like can get you
+from architecture to product design, but not, probably, to music.
+If you make money doing one thing and then work on another, you
+have more freedom of choice.Which route should you take?  That depends on how sure you are of
+what you want to do, how good you are at taking orders, how much
+risk you can stand, and the odds that anyone will pay (in your
+lifetime) for what you want to do.  If you're sure of the general
+area you want to work in and it's something people are likely to
+pay you for, then you should probably take the organic route.  But
+if you don't know what you want to work on, or don't like to take
+orders, you may want to take the two-job route, if you can stand
+the risk.Don't decide too soon.  Kids who know early what they want to do
+seem impressive, as if they got the answer to some math question
+before the other kids.  They have an answer, certainly, but odds
+are it's wrong.A friend of mine who is a quite successful doctor complains constantly
+about her job.  When people applying to medical school ask her for
+advice, she wants to shake them and yell "Don't do it!"  (But she
+never does.) How did she get into this fix?  In high school she
+already wanted to be a doctor.  And she is so ambitious and determined
+that she overcame every obstacle along the way—including,
+unfortunately, not liking it.Now she has a life chosen for her by a high-school kid.When you're young, you're given the impression that you'll get
+enough information to make each choice before you need to make it.
+But this is certainly not so with work.  When you're deciding what
+to do, you have to operate on ridiculously incomplete information.
+Even in college you get little idea what various types of work are
+like.  At best you may have a couple internships, but not all jobs
+offer internships, and those that do don't teach you much more about
+the work than being a batboy teaches you about playing baseball.In the design of lives, as in the design of most other things, you
+get better results if you use flexible media.  So unless you're
+fairly sure what you want to do, your best bet may be to choose a
+type of work that could turn into either an organic or two-job
+career.  That was probably part of the reason I chose computers.
+You can be a professor, or make a lot of money, or morph it into
+any number of other kinds of work.It's also wise, early on, to seek jobs that let you do many different
+things, so you can learn faster what various kinds of work are like.
+Conversely, the extreme version of the two-job route is dangerous
+because it teaches you so little about what you like.  If you work
+hard at being a bond trader for ten years, thinking that you'll
+quit and write novels when you have enough money, what happens when
+you quit and then discover that you don't actually like writing
+novels?Most people would say, I'd take that problem.  Give me a million
+dollars and I'll figure out what to do.  But it's harder than it
+looks.  Constraints give your life shape.  Remove them and most
+people have no idea what to do: look at what happens to those who
+win lotteries or inherit money.  Much as everyone thinks they want
+financial security, the happiest people are not those who have it,
+but those who like what they do.  So a plan that promises freedom
+at the expense of knowing what to do with it may not be as good as
+it seems.Whichever route you take, expect a struggle.  Finding work you love
+is very difficult.  Most people fail.  Even if you succeed, it's
+rare to be free to work on what you want till your thirties or
+forties.  But if you have the destination in sight you'll be more
+likely to arrive at it.  If you know you can love work, you're in
+the home stretch, and if you know what work you love, you're
+practically there.Notes[1]
+Currently we do the opposite: when we make kids do boring work,
+like arithmetic drills, instead of admitting frankly that it's
+boring, we try to disguise it with superficial decorations.[2]
+One father told me about a related phenomenon: he found himself
+concealing from his family how much he liked his work.  When he
+wanted to go to work on a saturday, he found it easier to say that
+it was because he "had to" for some reason, rather than admitting
+he preferred to work than stay home with them.[3]
+Something similar happens with suburbs.  Parents move to suburbs
+to raise their kids in a safe environment, but suburbs are so dull
+and artificial that by the time they're fifteen the kids are convinced
+the whole world is boring.[4]
+I'm not saying friends should be the only audience for your
+work.  The more people you can help, the better.  But friends should
+be your compass.[5]
+Donald Hall said young would-be poets were mistaken to be so
+obsessed with being published.  But you can imagine what it would
+do for a 24 year old to get a poem published in The New Yorker.
+Now to people he meets at parties he's a real poet.  Actually he's
+no better or worse than he was before, but to a clueless audience
+like that, the approval of an official authority makes all the
+difference.   So it's a harder problem than Hall realizes.  The
+reason the young care so much about prestige is that the people
+they want to impress are not very discerning.[6]
+This is isomorphic to the principle that you should prevent
+your beliefs about how things are from being contaminated by how
+you wish they were.  Most people let them mix pretty promiscuously.
+The continuing popularity of religion is the most visible index of
+that.[7]
+A more accurate metaphor would be to say that the graph of jobs
+is not very well connected.Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Dan Friedman, Sarah Harlin,
+Jessica Livingston, Jackie McDonough, Robert Morris, Peter Norvig, 
+David Sloo, and Aaron Swartz
+for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/mod.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+December 2019There are two distinct ways to be politically moderate: on purpose
+and by accident. Intentional moderates are trimmers, deliberately
+choosing a position mid-way between the extremes of right and left.
+Accidental moderates end up in the middle, on average, because they
+make up their own minds about each question, and the far right and
+far left are roughly equally wrong.You can distinguish intentional from accidental moderates by the
+distribution of their opinions. If the far left opinion on some
+matter is 0 and the far right opinion 100, an intentional moderate's
+opinion on every question will be near 50. Whereas an accidental
+moderate's opinions will be scattered over a broad range, but will,
+like those of the intentional moderate, average to about 50.Intentional moderates are similar to those on the far left and the
+far right in that their opinions are, in a sense, not their own.
+The defining quality of an ideologue, whether on the left or the
+right, is to acquire one's opinions in bulk. You don't get to pick
+and choose. Your opinions about taxation can be predicted from your
+opinions about sex. And although intentional moderates
+might seem to be the opposite of ideologues, their beliefs (though
+in their case the word "positions" might be more accurate) are also
+acquired in bulk. If the median opinion shifts to the right or left,
+the intentional moderate must shift with it. Otherwise they stop
+being moderate.Accidental moderates, on the other hand, not only choose their own
+answers, but choose their own questions. They may not care at all
+about questions that the left and right both think are terribly
+important. So you can only even measure the politics of an accidental
+moderate from the intersection of the questions they care about and
+those the left and right care about, and this can
+sometimes be vanishingly small.It is not merely a manipulative rhetorical trick to say "if you're
+not with us, you're against us," but often simply false.Moderates are sometimes derided as cowards, particularly by 
+the extreme left. But while it may be accurate to call intentional
+moderates cowards, openly being an accidental moderate requires the
+most courage of all, because you get attacked from both right and
+left, and you don't have the comfort of being an orthodox member
+of a large group to sustain you.Nearly all the most impressive people I know are accidental moderates.
+If I knew a lot of professional athletes, or people in the entertainment
+business, that might be different. Being on the far left or far
+right doesn't affect how fast you run or how well you sing. But
+someone who works with ideas has to be independent-minded to do it
+well.Or more precisely, you have to be independent-minded about the ideas
+you work with. You could be mindlessly doctrinaire in your politics
+and still be a good mathematician. In the 20th century, a lot of
+very smart people were Marxists — just no one who was smart about
+the subjects Marxism involves. But if the ideas you use in your
+work intersect with the politics of your time, you have two choices:
+be an accidental moderate, or be mediocre.Notes[1] It's possible in theory for one side to be entirely right and
+the other to be entirely wrong. Indeed, ideologues must always
+believe this is the case. But historically it rarely has been.[2] For some reason the far right tend to ignore moderates rather
+than despise them as backsliders. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it
+means that the far right is less ideological than the far left. Or
+perhaps that they are more confident, or more resigned, or simply
+more disorganized. I just don't know.[3] Having heretical opinions doesn't mean you have to express
+them openly. It may be
+easier to have them if you don't.
+Thanks to Austen Allred, Trevor Blackwell, Patrick Collison, Jessica Livingston,
+Amjad Masad, Ryan Petersen, and Harj Taggar for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/newideas.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+May 2021There's one kind of opinion I'd be very afraid to express publicly.
+If someone I knew to be both a domain expert and a reasonable person
+proposed an idea that sounded preposterous, I'd be very reluctant
+to say "That will never work."Anyone who has studied the history of ideas, and especially the
+history of science, knows that's how big things start. Someone
+proposes an idea that sounds crazy, most people dismiss it, then
+it gradually takes over the world.Most implausible-sounding ideas are in fact bad and could be safely
+dismissed. But not when they're proposed by reasonable domain
+experts. If the person proposing the idea is reasonable, then they
+know how implausible it sounds. And yet they're proposing it anyway.
+That suggests they know something you don't. And if they have deep
+domain expertise, that's probably the source of it.
+[1]Such ideas are not merely unsafe to dismiss, but disproportionately
+likely to be interesting. When the average person proposes an
+implausible-sounding idea, its implausibility is evidence of their
+incompetence. But when a reasonable domain expert does it, the
+situation is reversed. There's something like an efficient market
+here: on average the ideas that seem craziest will, if correct,
+have the biggest effect. So if you can eliminate the theory that
+the person proposing an implausible-sounding idea is incompetent,
+its implausibility switches from evidence that it's boring to
+evidence that it's exciting.
+[2]Such ideas are not guaranteed to work. But they don't have to be.
+They just have to be sufficiently good bets — to have sufficiently
+high expected value. And I think on average they do. I think if you
+bet on the entire set of implausible-sounding ideas proposed by
+reasonable domain experts, you'd end up net ahead.The reason is that everyone is too conservative. The word "paradigm"
+is overused, but this is a case where it's warranted. Everyone is
+too much in the grip of the current paradigm. Even the people who
+have the new ideas undervalue them initially. Which means that
+before they reach the stage of proposing them publicly, they've
+already subjected them to an excessively strict filter.
+[3]The wise response to such an idea is not to make statements, but
+to ask questions, because there's a real mystery here. Why has this
+smart and reasonable person proposed an idea that seems so wrong?
+Are they mistaken, or are you? One of you has to be. If you're the
+one who's mistaken, that would be good to know, because it means
+there's a hole in your model of the world. But even if they're
+mistaken, it should be interesting to learn why. A trap that an
+expert falls into is one you have to worry about too.This all seems pretty obvious. And yet there are clearly a lot of
+people who don't share my fear of dismissing new ideas. Why do they
+do it? Why risk looking like a jerk now and a fool later, instead
+of just reserving judgement?One reason they do it is envy. If you propose a radical new idea
+and it succeeds, your reputation (and perhaps also your wealth)
+will increase proportionally. Some people would be envious if that
+happened, and this potential envy propagates back into a conviction
+that you must be wrong.Another reason people dismiss new ideas is that it's an easy way
+to seem sophisticated. When a new idea first emerges, it usually
+seems pretty feeble. It's a mere hatchling. Received wisdom is a
+full-grown eagle by comparison. So it's easy to launch a devastating
+attack on a new idea, and anyone who does will seem clever to those
+who don't understand this asymmetry.This phenomenon is exacerbated by the difference between how those
+working on new ideas and those attacking them are rewarded. The
+rewards for working on new ideas are weighted by the value of the
+outcome. So it's worth working on something that only has a 10%
+chance of succeeding if it would make things more than 10x better.
+Whereas the rewards for attacking new ideas are roughly constant;
+such attacks seem roughly equally clever regardless of the target.People will also attack new ideas when they have a vested interest
+in the old ones. It's not surprising, for example, that some of
+Darwin's harshest critics were churchmen. People build whole careers
+on some ideas. When someone claims they're false or obsolete, they
+feel threatened.The lowest form of dismissal is mere factionalism: to automatically
+dismiss any idea associated with the opposing faction. The lowest
+form of all is to dismiss an idea because of who proposed it.But the main thing that leads reasonable people to dismiss new ideas
+is the same thing that holds people back from proposing them: the
+sheer pervasiveness of the current paradigm. It doesn't just affect
+the way we think; it is the Lego blocks we build thoughts out of.
+Popping out of the current paradigm is something only a few people
+can do. And even they usually have to suppress their intuitions at
+first, like a pilot flying through cloud who has to trust his
+instruments over his sense of balance.
+[4]Paradigms don't just define our present thinking. They also vacuum
+up the trail of crumbs that led to them, making our standards for
+new ideas impossibly high. The current paradigm seems so perfect
+to us, its offspring, that we imagine it must have been accepted
+completely as soon as it was discovered — that whatever the church thought
+of the heliocentric model, astronomers must have been convinced as
+soon as Copernicus proposed it. Far, in fact, from it. Copernicus
+published the heliocentric model in 1532, but it wasn't till the
+mid seventeenth century that the balance of scientific opinion
+shifted in its favor.
+[5]Few understand how feeble new ideas look when they first appear.
+So if you want to have new ideas yourself, one of the most valuable
+things you can do is to learn what they look like when they're born.
+Read about how new ideas happened, and try to get yourself into the
+heads of people at the time. How did things look to them, when the
+new idea was only half-finished, and even the person who had it was
+only half-convinced it was right?But you don't have to stop at history. You can observe big new ideas
+being born all around you right now. Just look for a reasonable
+domain expert proposing something that sounds wrong.If you're nice, as well as wise, you won't merely resist attacking
+such people, but encourage them. Having new ideas is a lonely
+business. Only those who've tried it know how lonely. These people
+need your help. And if you help them, you'll probably learn something
+in the process.Notes[1]
+This domain expertise could be in another field. Indeed,
+such crossovers tend to be particularly promising.[2]
+I'm not claiming this principle extends much beyond math,
+engineering, and the hard sciences. In politics, for example,
+crazy-sounding ideas generally are as bad as they sound. Though
+arguably this is not an exception, because the people who propose
+them are not in fact domain experts; politicians are domain experts
+in political tactics, like how to get elected and how to get
+legislation passed, but not in the world that policy acts upon.
+Perhaps no one could be.[3]
+This sense of "paradigm" was defined by Thomas Kuhn in his
+Structure of Scientific Revolutions, but I also recommend his
+Copernican Revolution, where you can see him at work developing the
+idea.[4]
+This is one reason people with a touch of Asperger's may have
+an advantage in discovering new ideas. They're always flying on
+instruments.[5]
+Hall, Rupert. From Galileo to Newton. Collins, 1963. This
+book is particularly good at getting into contemporaries' heads.Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Patrick Collison, Suhail Doshi, Daniel
+Gackle, Jessica Livingston, and Robert Morris for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/nft.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+May 2021Noora Health, a nonprofit I've 
+supported for years, just launched
+a new NFT. It has a dramatic name, Save Thousands of Lives,
+because that's what the proceeds will do.Noora has been saving lives for 7 years. They run programs in
+hospitals in South Asia to teach new mothers how to take care of
+their babies once they get home. They're in 165 hospitals now. And
+because they know the numbers before and after they start at a new
+hospital, they can measure the impact they have. It is massive.
+For every 1000 live births, they save 9 babies.This number comes from a study
+of 133,733 families at 28 different
+hospitals that Noora conducted in collaboration with the Better
+Birth team at Ariadne Labs, a joint center for health systems
+innovation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard T.H. Chan
+School of Public Health.Noora is so effective that even if you measure their costs in the
+most conservative way, by dividing their entire budget by the number
+of lives saved, the cost of saving a life is the lowest I've seen.
+$1,235.For this NFT, they're going to issue a public report tracking how
+this specific tranche of money is spent, and estimating the number
+of lives saved as a result.NFTs are a new territory, and this way of using them is especially
+new, but I'm excited about its potential. And I'm excited to see
+what happens with this particular auction, because unlike an NFT
+representing something that has already happened,
+this NFT gets better as the price gets higher.The reserve price was about $2.5 million, because that's what it
+takes for the name to be accurate: that's what it costs to save
+2000 lives. But the higher the price of this NFT goes, the more
+lives will be saved. What a sentence to be able to write.

PaulGrahamEssays/philosophy.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,429 @@
+September 2007In high school I decided I was going to study philosophy in college.
+I had several motives, some more honorable than others.  One of the
+less honorable was to shock people.  College was regarded as job
+training where I grew up, so studying philosophy seemed an impressively
+impractical thing to do.  Sort of like slashing holes in your clothes
+or putting a safety pin through your ear, which were other forms
+of impressive impracticality then just coming into fashion.But I had some more honest motives as well.  I thought studying
+philosophy would be a shortcut straight to wisdom.  All the people
+majoring in other things would just end up with a bunch of domain
+knowledge.  I would be learning what was really what.I'd tried to read a few philosophy books.  Not recent ones; you
+wouldn't find those in our high school library.  But I tried to
+read Plato and Aristotle.  I doubt I believed I understood them,
+but they sounded like they were talking about something important.
+I assumed I'd learn what in college.The summer before senior year I took some college classes.  I learned
+a lot in the calculus class, but I didn't learn much in Philosophy
+101.  And yet my plan to study philosophy remained intact.  It was
+my fault I hadn't learned anything.  I hadn't read the books we
+were assigned carefully enough.  I'd give Berkeley's Principles
+of Human Knowledge another shot in college.  Anything so admired
+and so difficult to read must have something in it, if one could
+only figure out what.Twenty-six years later, I still don't understand Berkeley.  I have
+a nice edition of his collected works.  Will I ever read it?  Seems
+unlikely.The difference between then and now is that now I understand why
+Berkeley is probably not worth trying to understand.  I think I see
+now what went wrong with philosophy, and how we might fix it.WordsI did end up being a philosophy major for most of college.  It
+didn't work out as I'd hoped.  I didn't learn any magical truths
+compared to which everything else was mere domain knowledge.  But
+I do at least know now why I didn't.  Philosophy doesn't really
+have a subject matter in the way math or history or most other
+university subjects do.  There is no core of knowledge one must
+master.  The closest you come to that is a knowledge of what various
+individual philosophers have said about different topics over the
+years.  Few were sufficiently correct that people have forgotten
+who discovered what they discovered.Formal logic has some subject matter. I took several classes in
+logic.  I don't know if I learned anything from them.
+[1]
+It does seem to me very important to be able to flip ideas around in
+one's head: to see when two ideas don't fully cover the space of
+possibilities, or when one idea is the same as another but with a
+couple things changed.  But did studying logic teach me the importance
+of thinking this way, or make me any better at it?  I don't know.There are things I know I learned from studying philosophy.  The
+most dramatic I learned immediately, in the first semester of
+freshman year, in a class taught by Sydney Shoemaker.  I learned
+that I don't exist.  I am (and you are) a collection of cells that
+lurches around driven by various forces, and calls itself I.  But
+there's no central, indivisible thing that your identity goes with.
+You could conceivably lose half your brain and live.  Which means
+your brain could conceivably be split into two halves and each
+transplanted into different bodies.  Imagine waking up after such
+an operation.  You have to imagine being two people.The real lesson here is that the concepts we use in everyday life
+are fuzzy, and break down if pushed too hard.  Even a concept as
+dear to us as I.  It took me a while to grasp this, but when I
+did it was fairly sudden, like someone in the nineteenth century
+grasping evolution and realizing the story of creation they'd been
+told as a child was all wrong. 
+[2]
+Outside of math there's a limit
+to how far you can push words; in fact, it would not be a bad
+definition of math to call it the study of terms that have precise
+meanings.  Everyday words are inherently imprecise.  They work well
+enough in everyday life that you don't notice.  Words seem to work,
+just as Newtonian physics seems to.  But you can always make them
+break if you push them far enough.I would say that this has been, unfortunately for philosophy, the
+central fact of philosophy.  Most philosophical debates are not
+merely afflicted by but driven by confusions over words.  Do we
+have free will?  Depends what you mean by "free." Do abstract ideas
+exist?  Depends what you mean by "exist."Wittgenstein is popularly credited with the idea that most philosophical
+controversies are due to confusions over language.  I'm not sure
+how much credit to give him.  I suspect a lot of people realized
+this, but reacted simply by not studying philosophy, rather than
+becoming philosophy professors.How did things get this way?  Can something people have spent
+thousands of years studying really be a waste of time?  Those are
+interesting questions.  In fact, some of the most interesting
+questions you can ask about philosophy.  The most valuable way to
+approach the current philosophical tradition may be neither to get
+lost in pointless speculations like Berkeley, nor to shut them down
+like Wittgenstein, but to study it as an example of reason gone
+wrong.HistoryWestern philosophy really begins with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
+What we know of their predecessors comes from fragments and references
+in later works; their doctrines could be described as speculative
+cosmology that occasionally strays into analysis.  Presumably they
+were driven by whatever makes people in every other society invent
+cosmologies.
+[3]With Socrates, Plato, and particularly Aristotle, this tradition
+turned a corner.  There started to be a lot more analysis.  I suspect
+Plato and Aristotle were encouraged in this by progress in math.
+Mathematicians had by then shown that you could figure things out
+in a much more conclusive way than by making up fine sounding stories
+about them.  
+[4]People talk so much about abstractions now that we don't realize
+what a leap it must have been when they first started to.  It was
+presumably many thousands of years between when people first started
+describing things as hot or cold and when someone asked "what is
+heat?"  No doubt it was a very gradual process.  We don't know if
+Plato or Aristotle were the first to ask any of the questions they
+did.  But their works are the oldest we have that do this on a large
+scale, and there is a freshness (not to say naivete) about them
+that suggests some of the questions they asked were new to them,
+at least.Aristotle in particular reminds me of the phenomenon that happens
+when people discover something new, and are so excited by it that
+they race through a huge percentage of the newly discovered territory
+in one lifetime.  If so, that's evidence of how new this kind of
+thinking was. 
+[5]This is all to explain how Plato and Aristotle can be very impressive
+and yet naive and mistaken.  It was impressive even to ask the
+questions they did.  That doesn't mean they always came up with
+good answers.  It's not considered insulting to say that ancient
+Greek mathematicians were naive in some respects, or at least lacked
+some concepts that would have made their lives easier.  So I hope
+people will not be too offended if I propose that ancient philosophers
+were similarly naive.  In particular, they don't seem to have fully
+grasped what I earlier called the central fact of philosophy: that
+words break if you push them too far."Much to the surprise of the builders of the first digital computers,"
+Rod Brooks wrote, "programs written for them usually did not work."
+[6]
+Something similar happened when people first started trying
+to talk about abstractions.  Much to their surprise, they didn't
+arrive at answers they agreed upon.  In fact, they rarely seemed
+to arrive at answers at all.They were in effect arguing about artifacts induced by sampling at
+too low a resolution.The proof of how useless some of their answers turned out to be is
+how little effect they have.  No one after reading Aristotle's
+Metaphysics does anything differently as a result.
+[7]Surely I'm not claiming that ideas have to have practical applications
+to be interesting?  No, they may not have to.  Hardy's boast that
+number theory had no use whatsoever wouldn't disqualify it.  But
+he turned out to be mistaken.  In fact, it's suspiciously hard to
+find a field of math that truly has no practical use.  And Aristotle's
+explanation of the ultimate goal of philosophy in Book A of the
+Metaphysics implies that philosophy should be useful too.Theoretical KnowledgeAristotle's goal was to find the most general of general principles.
+The examples he gives are convincing: an ordinary worker builds
+things a certain way out of habit; a master craftsman can do more
+because he grasps the underlying principles.  The trend is clear:
+the more general the knowledge, the more admirable it is.  But then
+he makes a mistake—possibly the most important mistake in the
+history of philosophy.  He has noticed that theoretical knowledge
+is often acquired for its own sake, out of curiosity, rather than
+for any practical need.  So he proposes there are two kinds of
+theoretical knowledge: some that's useful in practical matters and
+some that isn't.  Since people interested in the latter are interested
+in it for its own sake, it must be more noble.  So he sets as his
+goal in the Metaphysics the exploration of knowledge that has no
+practical use.  Which means no alarms go off when he takes on grand
+but vaguely understood questions and ends up getting lost in a sea
+of words.His mistake was to confuse motive and result.  Certainly, people
+who want a deep understanding of something are often driven by
+curiosity rather than any practical need.  But that doesn't mean
+what they end up learning is useless.  It's very valuable in practice
+to have a deep understanding of what you're doing; even if you're
+never called on to solve advanced problems, you can see shortcuts
+in the solution of simple ones, and your knowledge won't break down
+in edge cases, as it would if you were relying on formulas you
+didn't understand.  Knowledge is power.  That's what makes theoretical
+knowledge prestigious.  It's also what causes smart people to be
+curious about certain things and not others; our DNA is not so
+disinterested as we might think.So while ideas don't have to have immediate practical applications
+to be interesting, the kinds of things we find interesting will
+surprisingly often turn out to have practical applications.The reason Aristotle didn't get anywhere in the Metaphysics was
+partly that he set off with contradictory aims: to explore the most
+abstract ideas, guided by the assumption that they were useless.
+He was like an explorer looking for a territory to the north of
+him, starting with the assumption that it was located to the south.And since his work became the map used by generations of future
+explorers, he sent them off in the wrong direction as well. 
+[8]
+Perhaps worst of all, he protected them from both the criticism of
+outsiders and the promptings of their own inner compass by establishing
+the principle that the most noble sort of theoretical knowledge had
+to be useless.The Metaphysics is mostly a failed experiment.  A few ideas from
+it turned out to be worth keeping; the bulk of it has had no effect
+at all.  The Metaphysics is among the least read of all famous
+books.  It's not hard to understand the way Newton's Principia
+is, but the way a garbled message is.Arguably it's an interesting failed experiment.  But unfortunately
+that was not the conclusion Aristotle's successors derived from
+works like the Metaphysics. 
+[9]
+Soon after, the western world
+fell on intellectual hard times.  Instead of version 1s to be
+superseded, the works of Plato and Aristotle became revered texts
+to be mastered and discussed.  And so things remained for a shockingly
+long time.  It was not till around 1600 (in Europe, where the center
+of gravity had shifted by then) that one found people confident
+enough to treat Aristotle's work as a catalog of mistakes.  And
+even then they rarely said so outright.If it seems surprising that the gap was so long, consider how little
+progress there was in math between Hellenistic times and the
+Renaissance.In the intervening years an unfortunate idea took hold:  that it
+was not only acceptable to produce works like the Metaphysics,
+but that it was a particularly prestigious line of work, done by a
+class of people called philosophers.  No one thought to go back and
+debug Aristotle's motivating argument.  And so instead of correcting
+the problem Aristotle discovered by falling into it—that you can
+easily get lost if you talk too loosely about very abstract ideas—they 
+continued to fall into it.The SingularityCuriously, however, the works they produced continued to attract
+new readers.  Traditional philosophy occupies a kind of singularity
+in this respect.  If you write in an unclear way about big ideas,
+you produce something that seems tantalizingly attractive to
+inexperienced but intellectually ambitious students.  Till one knows
+better, it's hard to distinguish something that's hard to understand
+because the writer was unclear in his own mind from something like
+a mathematical proof that's hard to understand because the ideas
+it represents are hard to understand.  To someone who hasn't learned
+the difference, traditional philosophy seems extremely attractive:
+as hard (and therefore impressive) as math, yet broader in scope.
+That was what lured me in as a high school student.This singularity is even more singular in having its own defense
+built in.  When things are hard to understand, people who suspect
+they're nonsense generally keep quiet.  There's no way to prove a
+text is meaningless.  The closest you can get is to show that the
+official judges of some class of texts can't distinguish them from
+placebos. 
+[10]And so instead of denouncing philosophy, most people who suspected
+it was a waste of time just studied other things.  That alone is
+fairly damning evidence, considering philosophy's claims.  It's
+supposed to be about the ultimate truths. Surely all smart people
+would be interested in it, if it delivered on that promise.Because philosophy's flaws turned away the sort of people who might
+have corrected them, they tended to be self-perpetuating.  Bertrand
+Russell wrote in a letter in 1912:
+
+  Hitherto the people attracted to philosophy have been mostly those
+  who loved the big generalizations, which were all wrong, so that
+  few people with exact minds have taken up the subject.
+[11]
+
+His response was to launch Wittgenstein at it, with dramatic results.I think Wittgenstein deserves to be famous not for the discovery
+that most previous philosophy was a waste of time, which judging
+from the circumstantial evidence must have been made by every smart
+person who studied a little philosophy and declined to pursue it
+further, but for how he acted in response.
+[12]
+Instead of quietly
+switching to another field, he made a fuss, from inside.  He was
+Gorbachev.The field of philosophy is still shaken from the fright Wittgenstein
+gave it. 
+[13]
+Later in life he spent a lot of time talking about
+how words worked.  Since that seems to be allowed, that's what a
+lot of philosophers do now.  Meanwhile, sensing a vacuum in the
+metaphysical speculation department, the people who used to do
+literary criticism have been edging Kantward, under new names like
+"literary theory," "critical theory," and when they're feeling
+ambitious, plain "theory."  The writing is the familiar word salad:
+
+  Gender is not like some of the other grammatical modes which
+  express precisely a mode of conception without any reality that
+  corresponds to the conceptual mode, and consequently do not express
+  precisely something in reality by which the intellect could be
+  moved to conceive a thing the way it does, even where that motive
+  is not something in the thing as such.
+  [14]
+
+The singularity I've described is not going away.  There's a market
+for writing that sounds impressive and can't be disproven. There
+will always be both supply and demand.  So if one group abandons
+this territory, there will always be others ready to occupy it.A ProposalWe may be able to do better.  Here's an intriguing possibility.
+Perhaps we should do what Aristotle meant to do, instead of what
+he did.  The goal he announces in the Metaphysics seems one worth
+pursuing: to discover the most general truths.  That sounds good.
+But instead of trying to discover them because they're useless,
+let's try to discover them because they're useful.I propose we try again, but that we use that heretofore despised
+criterion, applicability, as a guide to keep us from wondering
+off into a swamp of abstractions.  Instead of trying to answer the
+question:
+
+  What are the most general truths?
+
+let's try to answer the question
+
+  Of all the useful things we can say, which are the most general?
+
+The test of utility I propose is whether we cause people who read
+what we've written to do anything differently afterward.  Knowing
+we have to give definite (if implicit) advice will keep us from
+straying beyond the resolution of the words we're using.The goal is the same as Aristotle's; we just approach it from a
+different direction.As an example of a useful, general idea, consider that of the
+controlled experiment.  There's an idea that has turned out to be
+widely applicable.  Some might say it's part of science, but it's
+not part of any specific science; it's literally meta-physics (in
+our sense of "meta").   The idea of evolution is another. It turns
+out to have quite broad applications—for example, in genetic
+algorithms and even product design.  Frankfurt's distinction between
+lying and bullshitting seems a promising recent example.
+[15]These seem to me what philosophy should look like: quite general
+observations that would cause someone who understood them to do
+something differently.Such observations will necessarily be about things that are imprecisely
+defined.  Once you start using words with precise meanings, you're
+doing math.  So starting from utility won't entirely solve the
+problem I described above—it won't flush out the metaphysical
+singularity.  But it should help.  It gives people with good
+intentions a new roadmap into abstraction.  And they may thereby
+produce things that make the writing of the people with bad intentions
+look bad by comparison.One drawback of this approach is that it won't produce the sort of
+writing that gets you tenure.  And not just because it's not currently
+the fashion.  In order to get tenure in any field you must not
+arrive at conclusions that members of tenure committees can disagree
+with.  In practice there are two kinds of solutions to this problem.
+In math and the sciences, you can prove what you're saying, or at
+any rate adjust your conclusions so you're not claiming anything
+false ("6 of 8 subjects had lower blood pressure after the treatment").
+In the humanities you can either avoid drawing any definite conclusions
+(e.g. conclude that an issue is a complex one), or draw conclusions
+so narrow that no one cares enough to disagree with you.The kind of philosophy I'm advocating won't be able to take either
+of these routes.  At best you'll be able to achieve the essayist's
+standard of proof, not the mathematician's or the experimentalist's.
+And yet you won't be able to meet the usefulness test without
+implying definite and fairly broadly applicable conclusions.  Worse
+still, the usefulness test will tend to produce results that annoy
+people: there's no use in telling people things they already believe,
+and people are often upset to be told things they don't.Here's the exciting thing, though.  Anyone can do this.  Getting
+to general plus useful by starting with useful and cranking up the
+generality may be unsuitable for junior professors trying to get
+tenure, but it's better for everyone else, including professors who
+already have it.  This side of the mountain is a nice gradual slope.
+You can start by writing things that are useful but very specific,
+and then gradually make them more general.  Joe's has good burritos.
+What makes a good burrito?  What makes good food?  What makes
+anything good?  You can take as long as you want.  You don't have
+to get all the way to the top of the mountain.  You don't have to
+tell anyone you're doing philosophy.If it seems like a daunting task to do philosophy, here's an
+encouraging thought.  The field is a lot younger than it seems.
+Though the first philosophers in the western tradition lived about
+2500 years ago, it would be misleading to say the field is 2500
+years old, because for most of that time the leading practitioners
+weren't doing much more than writing commentaries on Plato or
+Aristotle while watching over their shoulders for the next invading
+army.  In the times when they weren't, philosophy was hopelessly
+intermingled with religion.  It didn't shake itself free till a
+couple hundred years ago, and even then was afflicted by the
+structural problems I've described above.  If I say this, some will
+say it's a ridiculously overbroad and uncharitable generalization,
+and others will say it's old news, but here goes: judging from their
+works, most philosophers up to the present have been wasting their
+time.  So in a sense the field is still at the first step. 
+[16]That sounds a preposterous claim to make.  It won't seem so
+preposterous in 10,000 years.  Civilization always seems old, because
+it's always the oldest it's ever been.  The only way to say whether
+something is really old or not is by looking at structural evidence,
+and structurally philosophy is young; it's still reeling from the
+unexpected breakdown of words.Philosophy is as young now as math was in 1500.  There is a lot
+more to discover.Notes
+[1]
+In practice formal logic is not much use, because despite
+some progress in the last 150 years we're still only able to formalize
+a small percentage of statements.  We may never do that much better,
+for the same reason 1980s-style "knowledge representation" could
+never have worked; many statements may have no representation more
+concise than a huge, analog brain state.[2]
+It was harder for Darwin's contemporaries to grasp this than
+we can easily imagine.  The story of creation in the Bible is not
+just a Judeo-Christian concept; it's roughly what everyone must
+have believed since before people were people.  The hard part of
+grasping evolution was to realize that species weren't, as they
+seem to be, unchanging, but had instead evolved from different,
+simpler organisms over unimaginably long periods of time.Now we don't have to make that leap.  No one in an industrialized
+country encounters the idea of evolution for the first time as an
+adult.  Everyone's taught about it as a child, either as truth or
+heresy.[3]
+Greek philosophers before Plato wrote in verse.  This must
+have affected what they said.  If you try to write about the nature
+of the world in verse, it inevitably turns into incantation.  Prose
+lets you be more precise, and more tentative.[4]
+Philosophy is like math's
+ne'er-do-well brother.  It was born when Plato and Aristotle looked
+at the works of their predecessors and said in effect "why can't
+you be more like your brother?"  Russell was still saying the same
+thing 2300 years later.Math is the precise half of the most abstract ideas, and philosophy
+the imprecise half.  It's probably inevitable that philosophy will
+suffer by comparison, because there's no lower bound to its precision.
+Bad math is merely boring, whereas bad philosophy is nonsense.  And
+yet there are some good ideas in the imprecise half.[5]
+Aristotle's best work was in logic and zoology, both of which
+he can  be said to have invented.  But the most dramatic departure
+from his predecessors was a new, much more analytical style of
+thinking.  He was arguably the first scientist.[6]
+Brooks, Rodney, Programming in Common Lisp, Wiley, 1985, p.
+94.[7]
+Some would say we depend on Aristotle more than we realize,
+because his ideas were one of the ingredients in our common culture.
+Certainly a lot of the words we use have a connection with Aristotle,
+but it seems a bit much to suggest that we wouldn't have the concept
+of the essence of something or the distinction between matter and
+form if Aristotle hadn't written about them.One way to see how much we really depend on Aristotle would be to
+diff European culture with Chinese: what ideas did European culture
+have in 1800 that Chinese culture didn't, in virtue of Aristotle's
+contribution?[8]
+The meaning of the word "philosophy" has changed over time.
+In ancient times it covered a broad range of topics, comparable in
+scope to our "scholarship" (though without the methodological
+implications).  Even as late as Newton's time it included what we
+now call "science."  But core of the subject today is still what
+seemed to Aristotle the core: the attempt to discover the most
+general truths.Aristotle didn't call this "metaphysics."  That name got assigned
+to it because the books we now call the Metaphysics came after
+(meta = after) the Physics in the standard edition of Aristotle's
+works compiled by Andronicus of Rhodes three centuries later.  What
+we call "metaphysics" Aristotle called "first philosophy."[9]
+Some of Aristotle's immediate successors may have realized
+this, but it's hard to say because most of their works are lost.[10]
+Sokal, Alan, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative
+Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," Social Text 46/47, pp. 217-252.Abstract-sounding nonsense seems to be most attractive when it's
+aligned with some axe the audience already has to grind.  If this
+is so we should find it's most popular with groups that are (or
+feel) weak.  The powerful don't need its reassurance.[11]
+Letter to Ottoline Morrell, December 1912.  Quoted in:Monk, Ray, Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius, Penguin, 1991,
+p. 75.[12]
+A preliminary result, that all metaphysics between Aristotle
+and 1783 had been a waste of time, is due to I. Kant.[13]
+Wittgenstein asserted a sort of mastery to which the inhabitants
+of early 20th century Cambridge seem to have been peculiarly
+vulnerable—perhaps partly because so many had been raised religious
+and then stopped believing, so had a vacant space in their heads
+for someone to tell them what to do (others chose Marx or Cardinal
+Newman), and partly because a quiet, earnest place like Cambridge
+in that era had no natural immunity to messianic figures, just as
+European politics then had no natural immunity to dictators.[14]
+This is actually from the Ordinatio of Duns Scotus (ca.
+1300), with "number" replaced by "gender."  Plus ca change.Wolter, Allan (trans), Duns Scotus: Philosophical Writings, Nelson,
+1963, p. 92.[15]
+Frankfurt, Harry, On Bullshit,  Princeton University Press,
+2005.[16]
+Some introductions to philosophy now take the line that
+philosophy is worth studying as a process rather than for any
+particular truths you'll learn.  The philosophers whose works they
+cover would be rolling in their graves at that.  They hoped they
+were doing more than serving as examples of how to argue: they hoped
+they were getting results.  Most were wrong, but it doesn't seem
+an impossible hope.This argument seems to me like someone in 1500 looking at the lack
+of results achieved by alchemy and saying its value was as a process.
+No, they were going about it wrong.  It turns out it is possible
+to transmute lead into gold (though not economically at current
+energy prices), but the route to that knowledge was to
+backtrack and try another approach.Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Paul Buchheit, Jessica Livingston, 
+Robert Morris, Mark Nitzberg, and Peter Norvig for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/popular.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,602 @@
+May 2001(This article was written as a kind of business plan for a
+new language.
+So it is missing (because it takes for granted) the most important
+feature of a good programming language: very powerful abstractions.)A friend of mine once told an eminent operating systems
+expert that he wanted to design a really good
+programming language.  The expert told him that it would be a
+waste of time, that programming languages don't become popular
+or unpopular based on their merits, and so no matter how
+good his language was, no one would use it.  At least, that
+was what had happened to the language he had designed.What does make a language popular?  Do popular
+languages deserve their popularity?  Is it worth trying to
+define a good programming language?  How would you do it?I think the answers to these questions can be found by looking 
+at hackers, and learning what they want.  Programming
+languages are for hackers, and a programming language
+is good as a programming language (rather than, say, an
+exercise in denotational semantics or compiler design)
+if and only if hackers like it.1 The Mechanics of PopularityIt's true, certainly, that most people don't choose programming
+languages simply based on their merits.  Most programmers are told
+what language to use by someone else.  And yet I think the effect
+of such external factors on the popularity of programming languages
+is not as great as it's sometimes thought to be. I think a bigger
+problem is that a hacker's idea of a good programming language is
+not the same as most language designers'.Between the two, the hacker's opinion is the one that matters.
+Programming languages are not theorems. They're tools, designed
+for people, and they have to be designed to suit human strengths
+and weaknesses as much as shoes have to be designed for human feet.
+If a shoe pinches when you put it on, it's a bad shoe, however
+elegant it may be as a piece of sculpture.It may be that the majority of programmers can't tell a good language
+from a bad one. But that's no different with any other tool. It
+doesn't mean that it's a waste of time to try designing a good
+language. Expert hackers 
+can tell a good language when they see
+one, and they'll use it. Expert hackers are a tiny minority,
+admittedly, but that tiny minority write all the good software,
+and their influence is such that the rest of the programmers will
+tend to use whatever language they use. Often, indeed, it is not
+merely influence but command: often the expert hackers are the very
+people who, as their bosses or faculty advisors, tell the other
+programmers what language to use.The opinion of expert hackers is not the only force that determines
+the relative popularity of programming languages — legacy software
+(Cobol) and hype (Ada, Java) also play a role — but I think it is
+the most powerful force over the long term. Given an initial critical
+mass and enough time, a programming language probably becomes about
+as popular as it deserves to be. And popularity further separates
+good languages from bad ones, because feedback from real live users
+always leads to improvements. Look at how much any popular language
+has changed during its life. Perl and Fortran are extreme cases,
+but even Lisp has changed a lot. Lisp 1.5 didn't have macros, for
+example; these evolved later, after hackers at MIT had spent a
+couple years using Lisp to write real programs. [1]So whether or not a language has to be good to be popular, I think
+a language has to be popular to be good. And it has to stay popular
+to stay good. The state of the art in programming languages doesn't
+stand still. And yet the Lisps we have today are still pretty much
+what they had at MIT in the mid-1980s, because that's the last time
+Lisp had a sufficiently large and demanding user base.Of course, hackers have to know about a language before they can
+use it. How are they to hear? From other hackers. But there has to
+be some initial group of hackers using the language for others even
+to hear about it. I wonder how large this group has to be; how many
+users make a critical mass? Off the top of my head, I'd say twenty.
+If a language had twenty separate users, meaning twenty users who
+decided on their own to use it, I'd consider it to be real.Getting there can't be easy. I would not be surprised if it is
+harder to get from zero to twenty than from twenty to a thousand.
+The best way to get those initial twenty users is probably to use
+a trojan horse: to give people an application they want, which
+happens to be written in the new language.2 External FactorsLet's start by acknowledging one external factor that does affect
+the popularity of a programming language. To become popular, a
+programming language has to be the scripting language of a popular
+system. Fortran and Cobol were the scripting languages of early
+IBM mainframes. C was the scripting language of Unix, and so, later,
+was Perl. Tcl is the scripting language of Tk. Java and Javascript
+are intended to be the scripting languages of web browsers.Lisp is not a massively popular language because it is not the
+scripting language of a massively popular system. What popularity
+it retains dates back to the 1960s and 1970s, when it was the
+scripting language of MIT. A lot of the great programmers of the
+day were associated with MIT at some point. And in the early 1970s,
+before C, MIT's dialect of Lisp, called MacLisp, was one of the
+only programming languages a serious hacker would want to use.Today Lisp is the scripting language of two moderately popular
+systems, Emacs and Autocad, and for that reason I suspect that most
+of the Lisp programming done today is done in Emacs Lisp or AutoLisp.Programming languages don't exist in isolation. To hack is a
+transitive verb — hackers are usually hacking something — and in
+practice languages are judged relative to whatever they're used to
+hack. So if you want to design a popular language, you either have
+to supply more than a language, or you have to design your language
+to replace the scripting language of some existing system.Common Lisp is unpopular partly because it's an orphan. It did
+originally come with a system to hack: the Lisp Machine. But Lisp
+Machines (along with parallel computers) were steamrollered by the
+increasing power of general purpose processors in the 1980s. Common
+Lisp might have remained popular if it had been a good scripting
+language for Unix. It is, alas, an atrociously bad one.One way to describe this situation is to say that a language isn't
+judged on its own merits. Another view is that a programming language
+really isn't a programming language unless it's also the scripting
+language of something. This only seems unfair if it comes as a
+surprise. I think it's no more unfair than expecting a programming
+language to have, say, an implementation. It's just part of what
+a programming language is.A programming language does need a good implementation, of course,
+and this must be free. Companies will pay for software, but individual
+hackers won't, and it's the hackers you need to attract.A language also needs to have a book about it. The book should be
+thin, well-written, and full of good examples. K&R is the ideal
+here. At the moment I'd almost say that a language has to have a
+book published by O'Reilly. That's becoming the test of mattering
+to hackers.There should be online documentation as well. In fact, the book
+can start as online documentation. But I don't think that physical
+books are outmoded yet. Their format is convenient, and the de
+facto censorship imposed by publishers is a useful if imperfect
+filter. Bookstores are one of the most important places for learning
+about new languages.3 BrevityGiven that you can supply the three things any language needs — a
+free implementation, a book, and something to hack — how do you
+make a language that hackers will like?One thing hackers like is brevity. Hackers are lazy, in the same
+way that mathematicians and modernist architects are lazy: they
+hate anything extraneous. It would not be far from the truth to
+say that a hacker about to write a program decides what language
+to use, at least subconsciously, based on the total number of
+characters he'll have to type. If this isn't precisely how hackers
+think, a language designer would do well to act as if it were.It is a mistake to try to baby the user with long-winded expressions
+that are meant to resemble English. Cobol is notorious for this
+flaw. A hacker would consider being asked to writeadd x to y giving zinstead ofz = x+yas something between an insult to his intelligence and a sin against
+God.It has sometimes been said that Lisp should use first and rest
+instead of car and cdr, because it would make programs easier to
+read. Maybe for the first couple hours. But a hacker can learn
+quickly enough that car means the first element of a list and cdr
+means the rest. Using first and rest means 50% more typing. And
+they are also different lengths, meaning that the arguments won't
+line up when they're called, as car and cdr often are, in successive
+lines. I've found that it matters a lot how code lines up on the
+page. I can barely read Lisp code when it is set in a variable-width
+font, and friends say this is true for other languages too.Brevity is one place where strongly typed languages lose. All other
+things being equal, no one wants to begin a program with a bunch
+of declarations. Anything that can be implicit, should be.The individual tokens should be short as well. Perl and Common Lisp
+occupy opposite poles on this question. Perl programs can be almost
+cryptically dense, while the names of built-in Common Lisp operators
+are comically long. The designers of Common Lisp probably expected
+users to have text editors that would type these long names for
+them. But the cost of a long name is not just the cost of typing
+it. There is also the cost of reading it, and the cost of the space
+it takes up on your screen.4 HackabilityThere is one thing more important than brevity to a hacker: being
+able to do what you want. In the history of programming languages
+a surprising amount of effort has gone into preventing programmers
+from doing things considered to be improper. This is a dangerously
+presumptuous plan. How can the language designer know what the
+programmer is going to need to do? I think language designers would
+do better to consider their target user to be a genius who will
+need to do things they never anticipated, rather than a bumbler
+who needs to be protected from himself. The bumbler will shoot
+himself in the foot anyway. You may save him from referring to
+variables in another package, but you can't save him from writing
+a badly designed program to solve the wrong problem, and taking
+forever to do it.Good programmers often want to do dangerous and unsavory things.
+By unsavory I mean things that go behind whatever semantic facade
+the language is trying to present: getting hold of the internal
+representation of some high-level abstraction, for example. Hackers
+like to hack, and hacking means getting inside things and second
+guessing the original designer.Let yourself be second guessed. When you make any tool, people use
+it in ways you didn't intend, and this is especially true of a
+highly articulated tool like a programming language. Many a hacker
+will want to tweak your semantic model in a way that you never
+imagined. I say, let them; give the programmer access to as much
+internal stuff as you can without endangering runtime systems like
+the garbage collector.In Common Lisp I have often wanted to iterate through the fields
+of a struct — to comb out references to a deleted object, for example,
+or find fields that are uninitialized. I know the structs are just
+vectors underneath. And yet I can't write a general purpose function
+that I can call on any struct. I can only access the fields by
+name, because that's what a struct is supposed to mean.A hacker may only want to subvert the intended model of things once
+or twice in a big program. But what a difference it makes to be
+able to. And it may be more than a question of just solving a
+problem. There is a kind of pleasure here too. Hackers share the
+surgeon's secret pleasure in poking about in gross innards, the
+teenager's secret pleasure in popping zits. [2] For boys, at least,
+certain kinds of horrors are fascinating. Maxim magazine publishes
+an annual volume of photographs, containing a mix of pin-ups and
+grisly accidents. They know their audience.Historically, Lisp has been good at letting hackers have their way.
+The political correctness of Common Lisp is an aberration. Early
+Lisps let you get your hands on everything. A good deal of that
+spirit is, fortunately, preserved in macros. What a wonderful thing,
+to be able to make arbitrary transformations on the source code.Classic macros are a real hacker's tool — simple, powerful, and
+dangerous. It's so easy to understand what they do: you call a
+function on the macro's arguments, and whatever it returns gets
+inserted in place of the macro call. Hygienic macros embody the
+opposite principle. They try to protect you from understanding what
+they're doing. I have never heard hygienic macros explained in one
+sentence. And they are a classic example of the dangers of deciding
+what programmers are allowed to want. Hygienic macros are intended
+to protect me from variable capture, among other things, but variable
+capture is exactly what I want in some macros.A really good language should be both clean and dirty: cleanly
+designed, with a small core of well understood and highly orthogonal
+operators, but dirty in the sense that it lets hackers have their
+way with it. C is like this. So were the early Lisps. A real hacker's
+language will always have a slightly raffish character.A good programming language should have features that make the kind
+of people who use the phrase "software engineering" shake their
+heads disapprovingly. At the other end of the continuum are languages
+like Ada and Pascal, models of propriety that are good for teaching
+and not much else.5 Throwaway ProgramsTo be attractive to hackers, a language must be good for writing
+the kinds of programs they want to write. And that means, perhaps
+surprisingly, that it has to be good for writing throwaway programs.A throwaway program is a program you write quickly for some limited
+task: a program to automate some system administration task, or
+generate test data for a simulation, or convert data from one format
+to another. The surprising thing about throwaway programs is that,
+like the "temporary" buildings built at so many American universities
+during World War II, they often don't get thrown away. Many evolve
+into real programs, with real features and real users.I have a hunch that the best big programs begin life this way,
+rather than being designed big from the start, like the Hoover Dam.
+It's terrifying to build something big from scratch. When people
+take on a project that's too big, they become overwhelmed. The
+project either gets bogged down, or the result is sterile and
+wooden: a shopping mall rather than a real downtown, Brasilia rather
+than Rome, Ada rather than C.Another way to get a big program is to start with a throwaway
+program and keep improving it. This approach is less daunting, and
+the design of the program benefits from evolution. I think, if one
+looked, that this would turn out to be the way most big programs
+were developed. And those that did evolve this way are probably
+still written in whatever language they were first written in,
+because it's rare for a program to be ported, except for political
+reasons. And so, paradoxically, if you want to make a language that
+is used for big systems, you have to make it good for writing
+throwaway programs, because that's where big systems come from.Perl is a striking example of this idea. It was not only designed
+for writing throwaway programs, but was pretty much a throwaway
+program itself. Perl began life as a collection of utilities for
+generating reports, and only evolved into a programming language
+as the throwaway programs people wrote in it grew larger. It was
+not until Perl 5 (if then) that the language was suitable for
+writing serious programs, and yet it was already massively popular.What makes a language good for throwaway programs? To start with,
+it must be readily available. A throwaway program is something that
+you expect to write in an hour. So the language probably must
+already be installed on the computer you're using. It can't be
+something you have to install before you use it. It has to be there.
+C was there because it came with the operating system. Perl was
+there because it was originally a tool for system administrators,
+and yours had already installed it.Being available means more than being installed, though. An
+interactive language, with a command-line interface, is more
+available than one that you have to compile and run separately. A
+popular programming language should be interactive, and start up
+fast.Another thing you want in a throwaway program is brevity. Brevity
+is always attractive to hackers, and never more so than in a program
+they expect to turn out in an hour.6 LibrariesOf course the ultimate in brevity is to have the program already
+written for you, and merely to call it. And this brings us to what
+I think will be an increasingly important feature of programming
+languages: library functions. Perl wins because it has large
+libraries for manipulating strings. This class of library functions
+are especially important for throwaway programs, which are often
+originally written for converting or extracting data.  Many Perl
+programs probably begin as just a couple library calls stuck
+together.I think a lot of the advances that happen in programming languages
+in the next fifty years will have to do with library functions. I
+think future programming languages will have libraries that are as
+carefully designed as the core language. Programming language design
+will not be about whether to make your language strongly or weakly
+typed, or object oriented, or functional, or whatever, but about
+how to design great libraries. The kind of language designers who
+like to think about how to design type systems may shudder at this.
+It's almost like writing applications! Too bad. Languages are for
+programmers, and libraries are what programmers need.It's hard to design good libraries. It's not simply a matter of
+writing a lot of code. Once the libraries get too big, it can
+sometimes take longer to find the function you need than to write
+the code yourself. Libraries need to be designed using a small set
+of orthogonal operators, just like the core language. It ought to
+be possible for the programmer to guess what library call will do
+what he needs.Libraries are one place Common Lisp falls short. There are only
+rudimentary libraries for manipulating strings, and almost none
+for talking to the operating system. For historical reasons, Common
+Lisp tries to pretend that the OS doesn't exist. And because you
+can't talk to the OS, you're unlikely to be able to write a serious
+program using only the built-in operators in Common Lisp. You have
+to use some implementation-specific hacks as well, and in practice
+these tend not to give you everything you want. Hackers would think
+a lot more highly of Lisp if Common Lisp had powerful string
+libraries and good OS support.7 SyntaxCould a language with Lisp's syntax, or more precisely, lack of
+syntax, ever become popular? I don't know the answer to this
+question. I do think that syntax is not the main reason Lisp isn't
+currently popular. Common Lisp has worse problems than unfamiliar
+syntax. I know several programmers who are comfortable with prefix
+syntax and yet use Perl by default, because it has powerful string
+libraries and can talk to the os.There are two possible problems with prefix notation: that it is
+unfamiliar to programmers, and that it is not dense enough. The
+conventional wisdom in the Lisp world is that the first problem is
+the real one. I'm not so sure. Yes, prefix notation makes ordinary
+programmers panic. But I don't think ordinary programmers' opinions
+matter. Languages become popular or unpopular based on what expert
+hackers think of them, and I think expert hackers might be able to
+deal with prefix notation. Perl syntax can be pretty incomprehensible,
+but that has not stood in the way of Perl's popularity. If anything
+it may have helped foster a Perl cult.A more serious problem is the diffuseness of prefix notation. For
+expert hackers, that really is a problem. No one wants to write
+(aref a x y) when they could write a[x,y].In this particular case there is a way to finesse our way out of
+the problem. If we treat data structures as if they were functions
+on indexes, we could write (a x y) instead, which is even shorter
+than the Perl form. Similar tricks may shorten other types of
+expressions.We can get rid of (or make optional) a lot of parentheses by making
+indentation significant. That's how programmers read code anyway:
+when indentation says one thing and delimiters say another, we go
+by the indentation. Treating indentation as significant would
+eliminate this common source of bugs as well as making programs
+shorter.Sometimes infix syntax is easier to read. This is especially true
+for math expressions. I've used Lisp my whole programming life and
+I still don't find prefix math expressions natural. And yet it is
+convenient, especially when you're generating code, to have operators
+that take any number of arguments. So if we do have infix syntax,
+it should probably be implemented as some kind of read-macro.I don't think we should be religiously opposed to introducing syntax
+into Lisp, as long as it translates in a well-understood way into
+underlying s-expressions. There is already a good deal of syntax
+in Lisp. It's not necessarily bad to introduce more, as long as no
+one is forced to use it. In Common Lisp, some delimiters are reserved
+for the language, suggesting that at least some of the designers
+intended to have more syntax in the future.One of the most egregiously unlispy pieces of syntax in Common Lisp
+occurs in format strings; format is a language in its own right,
+and that language is not Lisp. If there were a plan for introducing
+more syntax into Lisp, format specifiers might be able to be included
+in it. It would be a good thing if macros could generate format
+specifiers the way they generate any other kind of code.An eminent Lisp hacker told me that his copy of CLTL falls open to
+the section format. Mine too. This probably indicates room for
+improvement. It may also mean that programs do a lot of I/O.8 EfficiencyA good language, as everyone knows, should generate fast code. But
+in practice I don't think fast code comes primarily from things
+you do in the design of the language. As Knuth pointed out long
+ago, speed only matters in certain critical bottlenecks.  And as
+many programmers have observed since, one is very often mistaken
+about where these bottlenecks are.So, in practice, the way to get fast code is to have a very good
+profiler, rather than by, say, making the language strongly typed.
+You don't need to know the type of every argument in every call in
+the program. You do need to be able to declare the types of arguments
+in the bottlenecks. And even more, you need to be able to find out
+where the bottlenecks are.One complaint people have had with Lisp is that it's hard to tell
+what's expensive. This might be true. It might also be inevitable,
+if you want to have a very abstract language. And in any case I
+think good profiling would go a long way toward fixing the problem:
+you'd soon learn what was expensive.Part of the problem here is social. Language designers like to
+write fast compilers. That's how they measure their skill. They
+think of the profiler as an add-on, at best. But in practice a good
+profiler may do more to improve the speed of actual programs written
+in the language than a compiler that generates fast code. Here,
+again, language designers are somewhat out of touch with their
+users. They do a really good job of solving slightly the wrong
+problem.It might be a good idea to have an active profiler — to push
+performance data to the programmer instead of waiting for him to
+come asking for it. For example, the editor could display bottlenecks
+in red when the programmer edits the source code. Another approach
+would be to somehow represent what's happening in running programs.
+This would be an especially big win in server-based applications,
+where you have lots of running programs to look at. An active
+profiler could show graphically what's happening in memory as a
+program's running, or even make sounds that tell what's happening.Sound is a good cue to problems. In one place I worked, we had a
+big board of dials showing what was happening to our web servers.
+The hands were moved by little servomotors that made a slight noise
+when they turned. I couldn't see the board from my desk, but I
+found that I could tell immediately, by the sound, when there was
+a problem with a server.It might even be possible to write a profiler that would automatically
+detect inefficient algorithms. I would not be surprised if certain
+patterns of memory access turned out to be sure signs of bad
+algorithms. If there were a little guy running around inside the
+computer executing our programs, he would probably have as long
+and plaintive a tale to tell about his job as a federal government
+employee. I often have a feeling that I'm sending the processor on
+a lot of wild goose chases, but I've never had a good way to look
+at what it's doing.A number of Lisps now compile into byte code, which is then executed
+by an interpreter. This is usually done to make the implementation
+easier to port, but it could be a useful language feature. It might
+be a good idea to make the byte code an official part of the
+language, and to allow programmers to use inline byte code in
+bottlenecks. Then such optimizations would be portable too.The nature of speed, as perceived by the end-user, may be changing.
+With the rise of server-based applications, more and more programs
+may turn out to be i/o-bound. It will be worth making i/o fast.
+The language can help with straightforward measures like simple,
+fast, formatted output functions, and also with deep structural
+changes like caching and persistent objects.Users are interested in response time. But another kind of efficiency
+will be increasingly important: the number of simultaneous users
+you can support per processor. Many of the interesting applications
+written in the near future will be server-based, and the number of
+users per server is the critical question for anyone hosting such
+applications. In the capital cost of a business offering a server-based
+application, this is the divisor.For years, efficiency hasn't mattered much in most end-user
+applications. Developers have been able to assume that each user
+would have an increasingly powerful processor sitting on their
+desk. And by Parkinson's Law, software has expanded to use the
+resources available. That will change with server-based applications.
+In that world, the hardware and software will be supplied together.
+For companies that offer server-based applications, it will make
+a very big difference to the bottom line how many users they can
+support per server.In some applications, the processor will be the limiting factor,
+and execution speed will be the most important thing to optimize.
+But often memory will be the limit; the number of simultaneous
+users will be determined by the amount of memory you need for each
+user's data. The language can help here too. Good support for
+threads will enable all the users to share a single heap. It may
+also help to have persistent objects and/or language level support
+for lazy loading.9 TimeThe last ingredient a popular language needs is time. No one wants
+to write programs in a language that might go away, as so many
+programming languages do. So most hackers will tend to wait until
+a language has been around for a couple years before even considering
+using it.Inventors of wonderful new things are often surprised to discover
+this, but you need time to get any message through to people. A
+friend of mine rarely does anything the first time someone asks
+him. He knows that people sometimes ask for things that they turn
+out not to want. To avoid wasting his time, he waits till the third
+or fourth time he's asked to do something; by then, whoever's asking
+him may be fairly annoyed, but at least they probably really do
+want whatever they're asking for.Most people have learned to do a similar sort of filtering on new
+things they hear about. They don't even start paying attention
+until they've heard about something ten times. They're perfectly
+justified: the majority of hot new whatevers do turn out to be a
+waste of time, and eventually go away. By delaying learning VRML,
+I avoided having to learn it at all.So anyone who invents something new has to expect to keep repeating
+their message for years before people will start to get it. We
+wrote what was, as far as I know, the first web-server based
+application, and it took us years to get it through to people that
+it didn't have to be downloaded. It wasn't that they were stupid.
+They just had us tuned out.The good news is, simple repetition solves the problem. All you
+have to do is keep telling your story, and eventually people will
+start to hear. It's not when people notice you're there that they
+pay attention; it's when they notice you're still there.It's just as well that it usually takes a while to gain momentum.
+Most technologies evolve a good deal even after they're first
+launched — programming languages especially. Nothing could be better,
+for a new techology, than a few years of being used only by a small
+number of early adopters. Early adopters are sophisticated and
+demanding, and quickly flush out whatever flaws remain in your
+technology. When you only have a few users you can be in close
+contact with all of them. And early adopters are forgiving when
+you improve your system, even if this causes some breakage.There are two ways new technology gets introduced: the organic
+growth method, and the big bang method. The organic growth method
+is exemplified by the classic seat-of-the-pants underfunded garage
+startup. A couple guys, working in obscurity, develop some new
+technology. They launch it with no marketing and initially have
+only a few (fanatically devoted) users. They continue to improve
+the technology, and meanwhile their user base grows by word of
+mouth. Before they know it, they're big.The other approach, the big bang method, is exemplified by the
+VC-backed, heavily marketed startup. They rush to develop a product,
+launch it with great publicity, and immediately (they hope) have
+a large user base.Generally, the garage guys envy the big bang guys. The big bang
+guys are smooth and confident and respected by the VCs. They can
+afford the best of everything, and the PR campaign surrounding the
+launch has the side effect of making them celebrities. The organic
+growth guys, sitting in their garage, feel poor and unloved. And
+yet I think they are often mistaken to feel sorry for themselves.
+Organic growth seems to yield better technology and richer founders
+than the big bang method. If you look at the dominant technologies
+today, you'll find that most of them grew organically.This pattern doesn't only apply to companies. You see it in sponsored
+research too. Multics and Common Lisp were big-bang projects, and
+Unix and MacLisp were organic growth projects.10 Redesign"The best writing is rewriting," wrote E. B. White.  Every good
+writer knows this, and it's true for software too. The most important
+part of design is redesign. Programming languages, especially,
+don't get redesigned enough.To write good software you must simultaneously keep two opposing
+ideas in your head. You need the young hacker's naive faith in
+his abilities, and at the same time the veteran's skepticism. You
+have to be able to think 
+how hard can it be? with one half of
+your brain while thinking 
+it will never work with the other.The trick is to realize that there's no real contradiction here.
+You want to be optimistic and skeptical about two different things.
+You have to be optimistic about the possibility of solving the
+problem, but skeptical about the value of whatever solution you've
+got so far.People who do good work often think that whatever they're working
+on is no good. Others see what they've done and are full of wonder,
+but the creator is full of worry. This pattern is no coincidence:
+it is the worry that made the work good.If you can keep hope and worry balanced, they will drive a project
+forward the same way your two legs drive a bicycle forward. In the
+first phase of the two-cycle innovation engine, you work furiously
+on some problem, inspired by your confidence that you'll be able
+to solve it. In the second phase, you look at what you've done in
+the cold light of morning, and see all its flaws very clearly. But
+as long as your critical spirit doesn't outweigh your hope, you'll
+be able to look at your admittedly incomplete system, and think,
+how hard can it be to get the rest of the way?, thereby continuing
+the cycle.It's tricky to keep the two forces balanced. In young hackers,
+optimism predominates. They produce something, are convinced it's
+great, and never improve it. In old hackers, skepticism predominates,
+and they won't even dare to take on ambitious projects.Anything you can do to keep the redesign cycle going is good. Prose
+can be rewritten over and over until you're happy with it. But
+software, as a rule, doesn't get redesigned enough. Prose has
+readers, but software has users. If a writer rewrites an essay,
+people who read the old version are unlikely to complain that their
+thoughts have been broken by some newly introduced incompatibility.Users are a double-edged sword. They can help you improve your
+language, but they can also deter you from improving it. So choose
+your users carefully, and be slow to grow their number. Having
+users is like optimization: the wise course is to delay it. Also,
+as a general rule, you can at any given time get away with changing
+more than you think. Introducing change is like pulling off a
+bandage: the pain is a memory almost as soon as you feel it.Everyone knows that it's not a good idea to have a language designed
+by a committee. Committees yield bad design. But I think the worst
+danger of committees is that they interfere with redesign. It is
+so much work to introduce changes that no one wants to bother.
+Whatever a committee decides tends to stay that way, even if most
+of the members don't like it.Even a committee of two gets in the way of redesign. This happens
+particularly in the interfaces between pieces of software written
+by two different people. To change the interface both have to agree
+to change it at once. And so interfaces tend not to change at all,
+which is a problem because they tend to be one of the most ad hoc
+parts of any system.One solution here might be to design systems so that interfaces
+are horizontal instead of vertical — so that modules are always
+vertically stacked strata of abstraction. Then the interface will
+tend to be owned by one of them. The lower of two levels will either
+be a language in which the upper is written, in which case the
+lower level will own the interface, or it will be a slave, in which
+case the interface can be dictated by the upper level.11 LispWhat all this implies is that there is hope for a new Lisp.  There
+is hope for any language that gives hackers what they want, including
+Lisp. I think we may have made a mistake in thinking that hackers
+are turned off by Lisp's strangeness. This comforting illusion may
+have prevented us from seeing the real problem with Lisp, or at
+least Common Lisp, which is that it sucks for doing what hackers
+want to do. A hacker's language needs powerful libraries and
+something to hack. Common Lisp has neither. A hacker's language is
+terse and hackable. Common Lisp is not.The good news is, it's not Lisp that sucks, but Common Lisp. If we
+can develop a new Lisp that is a real hacker's language, I think
+hackers will use it. They will use whatever language does the job.
+All we have to do is make sure this new Lisp does some important
+job better than other languages.History offers some encouragement. Over time, successive new
+programming languages have taken more and more features from Lisp.
+There is no longer much left to copy before the language you've
+made is Lisp. The latest hot language, Python, is a watered-down
+Lisp with infix syntax and no macros. A new Lisp would be a natural
+step in this progression.I sometimes think that it would be a good marketing trick to call
+it an improved version of Python. That sounds hipper than Lisp. To
+many people, Lisp is a slow AI language with a lot of parentheses.
+Fritz Kunze's official biography carefully avoids mentioning the
+L-word.  But my guess is that we shouldn't be afraid to call the
+new Lisp Lisp. Lisp still has a lot of latent respect among the
+very best hackers — the ones who took 6.001 and understood it, for
+example. And those are the users you need to win.In "How to Become a Hacker," Eric Raymond describes Lisp as something
+like Latin or Greek — a language you should learn as an intellectual
+exercise, even though you won't actually use it:
+
+  Lisp is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience
+  you will have when you finally get it; that experience will make
+  you a better programmer for the rest of your days, even if you
+  never actually use Lisp itself a lot.
+
+If I didn't know Lisp, reading this would set me asking questions.
+A language that would make me a better programmer, if it means
+anything at all, means a language that would be better for programming.
+And that is in fact the implication of what Eric is saying.As long as that idea is still floating around, I think hackers will
+be receptive enough to a new Lisp, even if it is called Lisp. But
+this Lisp must be a hacker's language, like the classic Lisps of
+the 1970s. It must be terse, simple, and hackable. And it must have
+powerful libraries for doing what hackers want to do now.In the matter of libraries I think there is room to beat languages
+like Perl and Python at their own game. A lot of the new applications
+that will need to be written in the coming years will be 
+server-based
+applications. There's no reason a new Lisp shouldn't have string
+libraries as good as Perl, and if this new Lisp also had powerful
+libraries for server-based applications, it could be very popular.
+Real hackers won't turn up their noses at a new tool that will let
+them solve hard problems with a few library calls. Remember, hackers
+are lazy.It could be an even bigger win to have core language support for
+server-based applications. For example, explicit support for programs
+with multiple users, or data ownership at the level of type tags.Server-based applications also give us the answer to the question
+of what this new Lisp will be used to hack. It would not hurt to
+make Lisp better as a scripting language for Unix. (It would be
+hard to make it worse.) But I think there are areas where existing
+languages would be easier to beat. I think it might be better to
+follow the model of Tcl, and supply the Lisp together with a complete
+system for supporting server-based applications. Lisp is a natural
+fit for server-based applications. Lexical closures provide a way
+to get the effect of subroutines when the ui is just a series of
+web pages. S-expressions map nicely onto html, and macros are good
+at generating it. There need to be better tools for writing
+server-based applications, and there needs to be a new Lisp, and
+the two would work very well together.12 The Dream LanguageBy way of summary, let's try describing the hacker's dream language.
+The dream language is 
+beautiful, clean, and terse. It has an
+interactive toplevel that starts up fast. You can write programs
+to solve common problems with very little code.  Nearly all the
+code in any program you write is code that's specific to your
+application. Everything else has been done for you.The syntax of the language is brief to a fault. You never have to
+type an unnecessary character, or even to use the shift key much.Using big abstractions you can write the first version of a program
+very quickly. Later, when you want to optimize, there's a really
+good profiler that tells you where to focus your attention. You
+can make inner loops blindingly fast, even writing inline byte code
+if you need to.There are lots of good examples to learn from, and the language is
+intuitive enough that you can learn how to use it from examples in
+a couple minutes. You don't need to look in the manual much. The
+manual is thin, and has few warnings and qualifications.The language has a small core, and powerful, highly orthogonal
+libraries that are as carefully designed as the core language. The
+libraries all work well together; everything in the language fits
+together like the parts in a fine camera. Nothing is deprecated,
+or retained for compatibility. The source code of all the libraries
+is readily available. It's easy to talk to the operating system
+and to applications written in other languages.The language is built in layers. The higher-level abstractions are
+built in a very transparent way out of lower-level abstractions,
+which you can get hold of if you want.Nothing is hidden from you that doesn't absolutely have to be. The
+language offers abstractions only as a way of saving you work,
+rather than as a way of telling you what to do. In fact, the language
+encourages you to be an equal participant in its design. You can
+change everything about it, including even its syntax, and anything
+you write has, as much as possible, the same status as what comes
+predefined.Notes[1]  Macros very close to the modern idea were proposed by Timothy
+Hart in 1964, two years after Lisp 1.5 was released. What was
+missing, initially, were ways to avoid variable capture and multiple
+evaluation; Hart's examples are subject to both.[2]  In When the Air Hits Your Brain, neurosurgeon Frank Vertosick
+recounts a conversation in which his chief resident, Gary, talks
+about the difference between surgeons and internists ("fleas"):
+
+  Gary and I ordered a large pizza and found an open booth. The
+  chief lit a cigarette. "Look at those goddamn fleas, jabbering
+  about some disease they'll see once in their lifetimes. That's
+  the trouble with fleas, they only like the bizarre stuff. They
+  hate their bread and butter cases. That's the difference between
+  us and the fucking fleas. See, we love big juicy lumbar disc
+  herniations, but they hate hypertension...."
+
+It's hard to think of a lumbar disc herniation as juicy (except
+literally). And yet I think I know what they mean. I've often had
+a juicy bug to track down. Someone who's not a programmer would
+find it hard to imagine that there could be pleasure in a bug.
+Surely it's better if everything just works. In one way, it is.
+And yet there is undeniably a grim satisfaction in hunting down
+certain sorts of bugs.

PaulGrahamEssays/pow.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+January 2017People who are powerful but uncharismatic will tend to be disliked.
+Their power makes them a target for criticism that they don't have
+the charisma to disarm. That was Hillary Clinton's problem. It also
+tends to be a problem for any CEO who is more of a builder than a
+schmoozer. And yet the builder-type CEO is (like Hillary) probably
+the best person for the job.I don't think there is any solution to this problem. It's human
+nature. The best we can do is to recognize that it's happening, and
+to understand that being a magnet for criticism is sometimes a sign
+not that someone is the wrong person for a job, but that they're
+the right one.

PaulGrahamEssays/rootsoflisp.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+May 2001
+
+(I wrote this article to help myself understand exactly
+what McCarthy discovered.  You don't need to know this stuff
+to program in Lisp, but it should be helpful to 
+anyone who wants to
+understand the essence of Lisp — both in the sense of its
+origins and its semantic core.  The fact that it has such a core
+is one of Lisp's distinguishing features, and the reason why,
+unlike other languages, Lisp has dialects.)In 1960, John 
+McCarthy published a remarkable paper in
+which he did for programming something like what Euclid did for
+geometry. He showed how, given a handful of simple
+operators and a notation for functions, you can
+build a whole programming language.
+He called this language Lisp, for "List Processing,"
+because one of his key ideas was to use a simple
+data structure called a list for both
+code and data.It's worth understanding what McCarthy discovered, not
+just as a landmark in the history of computers, but as
+a model for what programming is tending to become in
+our own time.  It seems to me that there have been
+two really clean, consistent models of programming so
+far: the C model and the Lisp model.
+These two seem points of high ground, with swampy lowlands
+between them.  As computers have grown more powerful,
+the new languages being developed have been moving
+steadily toward the Lisp model.  A popular recipe
+for new programming languages in the past 20 years 
+has been to take the C model of computing and add to
+it, piecemeal, parts taken from the Lisp model,
+like runtime typing and garbage collection.In this article I'm going to try to explain in the
+simplest possible terms what McCarthy discovered.
+The point is not just to learn about an interesting
+theoretical result someone figured out forty years ago,
+but to show where languages are heading.
+The unusual thing about Lisp — in fact, the defining
+quality of Lisp — is that it can be written in
+itself.  To understand what McCarthy meant by this,
+we're going to retrace his steps, with his mathematical
+notation translated into running Common Lisp code.

PaulGrahamEssays/rss.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Aaron Swartz created a scraped
+feed
+of the essays page.

PaulGrahamEssays/siliconvalley.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,292 @@
+May 2006(This essay is derived from a keynote at Xtech.)Could you reproduce Silicon Valley elsewhere, or is there something
+unique about it?It wouldn't be surprising if it were hard to reproduce in other
+countries, because you couldn't reproduce it in most of the US
+either.  What does it take to make a silicon valley even here?What it takes is the right people.  If you could get the right ten
+thousand people to move from Silicon Valley to Buffalo, Buffalo
+would become Silicon Valley.  
+[1]That's a striking departure from the past.  Up till a couple decades
+ago, geography was destiny for cities.  All great cities were located
+on waterways, because cities made money by trade, and water was the
+only economical way to ship.Now you could make a great city anywhere, if you could get the right
+people to move there.  So the question of how to make a silicon
+valley becomes: who are the right people, and how do you get them
+to move?Two TypesI think you only need two kinds of people to create a technology
+hub: rich people and nerds.  They're the limiting reagents in the
+reaction that produces startups, because they're the only ones
+present when startups get started.  Everyone else will move.Observation bears this out: within the US, towns have become startup
+hubs if and only if they have both rich people and nerds.  Few
+startups happen in Miami, for example, because although it's full
+of rich people, it has few nerds.  It's not the kind of place nerds
+like.Whereas Pittsburgh has the opposite problem: plenty of nerds, but
+no rich people.  The top US Computer Science departments are said
+to be MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, and Carnegie-Mellon.  MIT yielded
+Route 128.  Stanford and Berkeley yielded Silicon Valley.  But
+Carnegie-Mellon?  The record skips at that point.  Lower down the
+list, the University of Washington yielded a high-tech community
+in Seattle, and the University of Texas at Austin yielded one in
+Austin.  But what happened in Pittsburgh?  And in Ithaca, home of
+Cornell, which is also high on the list?I grew up in Pittsburgh and went to college at Cornell, so I can
+answer for both.  The weather is terrible,  particularly in winter,
+and there's no interesting old city to make up for it, as there is
+in Boston.  Rich people don't want to live in Pittsburgh or Ithaca.
+So while there are plenty of hackers who could start startups,
+there's no one to invest in them.Not BureaucratsDo you really need the rich people?  Wouldn't it work to have the
+government invest in the nerds?  No, it would not.  Startup investors
+are a distinct type of rich people.  They tend to have a lot of
+experience themselves in the technology business.  This (a) helps
+them pick the right startups, and (b) means they can supply advice
+and connections as well as money.  And the fact that they have a
+personal stake in the outcome makes them really pay attention.Bureaucrats by their nature are the exact opposite sort of people
+from startup investors. The idea of them making startup investments
+is comic.  It would be like mathematicians running Vogue-- or
+perhaps more accurately, Vogue editors running a math journal.
+[2]Though indeed, most things bureaucrats do, they do badly.   We just
+don't notice usually, because they only have to compete against
+other bureaucrats.  But as startup investors they'd have to compete
+against pros with a great deal more experience and motivation.Even corporations that have in-house VC groups generally forbid
+them to make their own investment decisions.  Most are only allowed
+to invest in deals where some reputable private VC firm is willing
+to act as lead investor.Not BuildingsIf you go to see Silicon Valley, what you'll see are buildings.
+But it's the people that make it Silicon Valley, not the buildings.
+I read occasionally about attempts to set up "technology
+parks" in other places, as if the active ingredient of Silicon
+Valley were the office space.  An article about Sophia Antipolis
+bragged that companies there included Cisco, Compaq, IBM, NCR, and
+Nortel.  Don't the French realize these aren't startups?Building office buildings for technology companies won't get you a
+silicon valley, because the key stage in the life of a startup
+happens before they want that kind of space.  The key stage is when
+they're three guys operating out of an apartment.  Wherever the
+startup is when it gets funded, it will stay.  The defining quality
+of Silicon Valley is not that Intel or Apple or Google have offices
+there, but that they were started there.So if you want to reproduce Silicon Valley, what you need to reproduce
+is those two or three founders sitting around a kitchen table
+deciding to start a company.  And to reproduce that you need those
+people.UniversitiesThe exciting thing is, all you need are the people.  If you could
+attract a critical mass of nerds and investors to live somewhere,
+you could reproduce Silicon Valley.  And both groups are highly
+mobile.  They'll go where life is good.  So what makes a place good
+to them?What nerds like is other nerds.  Smart people will go wherever other
+smart people are.  And in particular, to great universities.  In
+theory there could be other ways to attract them, but so far
+universities seem to be indispensable.  Within the US, there are
+no technology hubs without first-rate universities-- or at least,
+first-rate computer science departments.So if you want to make a silicon valley, you not only need a
+university, but one of the top handful in the world.  It has to be
+good enough to act as a magnet, drawing the best people from thousands
+of miles away.  And that means it has to stand up to existing magnets
+like MIT and Stanford.This sounds hard.  Actually it might be easy.  My professor friends,
+when they're deciding where they'd like to work, consider one thing
+above all: the quality of the other faculty.  What attracts professors
+is good colleagues.  So if you managed to recruit, en masse, a
+significant number of the best young researchers, you could create
+a first-rate university from nothing overnight.  And you could do
+that for surprisingly little.  If you paid 200 people hiring bonuses
+of $3 million apiece, you could put together a faculty that would
+bear comparison with any in the world.  And from that point the
+chain reaction would be self-sustaining.  So whatever it costs to
+establish a mediocre university, for an additional half billion or
+so you could have a great one.  
+[3]PersonalityHowever, merely creating a new university would not be enough to
+start a silicon valley. The university is just the seed.  It has
+to be planted in the right soil, or it won't germinate.  Plant it
+in the wrong place, and you just create Carnegie-Mellon.To spawn startups, your university has to be in a town that has
+attractions other than the university.  It has to be a place where
+investors want to live, and students want to stay after they graduate.The two like much the same things, because most startup investors
+are nerds themselves.  So what do nerds look for in a town?  Their
+tastes aren't completely different from other people's, because a
+lot of the towns they like most in the US are also big tourist
+destinations: San Francisco, Boston, Seattle.   But their tastes
+can't be quite mainstream either, because they dislike other big
+tourist destinations, like New York, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas.There has been a lot written lately about the "creative class." The
+thesis seems to be that as wealth derives increasingly from ideas,
+cities will prosper only if they attract those who have them.  That
+is certainly true; in fact it was the basis of Amsterdam's prosperity
+400 years ago.A lot of nerd tastes they share with the creative class in general.
+For example, they like well-preserved old neighborhoods instead of
+cookie-cutter suburbs, and locally-owned shops and restaurants
+instead of national chains.  Like the rest of the creative class,
+they want to live somewhere with personality.What exactly is personality?  I think it's the feeling that each
+building is the work of a distinct group of people.  A town with
+personality is one that doesn't feel mass-produced.  So if you want
+to make a startup hub-- or any town to attract the "creative class"--
+you probably have to ban large development projects.
+When a large tract has been developed by a single organization, you
+can always tell. 
+[4]Most towns with personality are old, but they don't have to be.
+Old towns have two advantages: they're denser, because they were
+laid out before cars, and they're more varied, because they were
+built one building at a time.  You could have both now.  Just have
+building codes that ensure density, and ban large scale developments.A corollary is that you have to keep out the biggest developer of
+all: the government.  A government that asks "How can we build a
+silicon valley?" has probably ensured failure by the way they framed
+the question.  You don't build a silicon valley; you let one grow.NerdsIf you want to attract nerds, you need more than a town with
+personality.  You need a town with the right personality.  Nerds
+are a distinct subset of the creative class, with different tastes
+from the rest.  You can see this most clearly in New York, which
+attracts a lot of creative people, but few nerds. 
+[5]What nerds like is the kind of town where people walk around smiling.
+This excludes LA, where no one walks at all, and also New York,
+where people walk, but not smiling. When I was in grad school in
+Boston, a friend came to visit from New York.  On the subway back
+from the airport she asked "Why is everyone smiling?"  I looked and
+they weren't smiling.  They just looked like they were compared to
+the facial expressions she was used to.If you've lived in New York, you know where these facial expressions
+come from.  It's the kind of place where your mind may be excited,
+but your body knows it's having a bad time.  People don't so much
+enjoy living there as endure it for the sake of the excitement.
+And if you like certain kinds of excitement, New York is incomparable.
+It's a hub of glamour, a magnet for all the shorter half-life
+isotopes of style and fame.Nerds don't care about glamour, so to them the appeal of New York
+is a mystery.  People who like New York will pay a fortune for a
+small, dark, noisy apartment in order to live in a town where the
+cool people are really cool.  A nerd looks at that deal and sees
+only: pay a fortune for a small, dark, noisy apartment.Nerds will pay a premium to live in a town where the smart people
+are really smart, but you don't have to pay as much for that.  It's
+supply and demand: glamour is popular, so you have to pay a lot for
+it.Most nerds like quieter pleasures.  They like cafes instead of
+clubs; used bookshops instead of fashionable clothing shops; hiking
+instead of dancing; sunlight instead of tall buildings.  A nerd's
+idea of paradise is Berkeley or Boulder.YouthIt's the young nerds who start startups, so it's those specifically
+the city has to appeal to.  The startup hubs in the US are all
+young-feeling towns.  This doesn't mean they have to be new.
+Cambridge has the oldest town plan in America, but it feels young
+because it's full of students.What you can't have, if you want to create a silicon valley, is a
+large, existing population of stodgy people.  It would be a waste
+of time to try to reverse the fortunes of a declining industrial town
+like Detroit or Philadelphia by trying to encourage startups.  Those
+places have too much momentum in the wrong direction.  You're better
+off starting with a blank slate in the form of a small town.  Or
+better still, if there's a town young people already flock to, that
+one.The Bay Area was a magnet for the young and optimistic for decades
+before it was associated with technology.  It was a place people
+went in search of something new.  And so it became synonymous with
+California nuttiness.  There's still a lot of that there.  If you
+wanted to start a new fad-- a new way to focus one's "energy," for
+example, or a new category of things not to eat-- the Bay Area would
+be the place to do it.  But a place that tolerates oddness in the
+search for the new is exactly what you want in a startup hub, because
+economically that's what startups are.  Most good startup ideas
+seem a little crazy; if they were obviously good ideas, someone
+would have done them already.(How many people are going to want computers in their houses?
+What, another search engine?)That's the connection between technology and liberalism.  Without
+exception the high-tech cities in the US are also the most liberal.
+But it's not because liberals are smarter that this is so.  It's
+because liberal cities tolerate odd ideas, and smart people by
+definition have odd ideas.Conversely, a town that gets praised for being "solid" or representing
+"traditional values" may be a fine place to live, but it's never
+going to succeed as a startup hub.  The 2004 presidential election,
+though a disaster in other respects, conveniently supplied us with
+a county-by-county 
+map of such places.  
+[6]To attract the young, a town must have an intact center.  In most
+American cities the center has been abandoned, and the growth, if
+any, is in the suburbs.  Most American cities have been turned
+inside out. But none of the startup hubs has: not San Francisco,
+or Boston, or Seattle.  They all have intact centers.
+[7]
+My guess is that no city with a dead center could be turned into a
+startup hub.  Young people don't want to live in the suburbs.Within the US, the two cities I think could most easily be turned
+into new silicon valleys are Boulder and Portland.  Both have the
+kind of effervescent feel that attracts the young.  They're each
+only a great university short of becoming a silicon valley, if they
+wanted to.TimeA great university near an attractive town.  Is that all it takes?
+That was all it took to make the original Silicon Valley.  Silicon
+Valley traces its origins to William Shockley, one of the inventors
+of the transistor.  He did the research that won him the Nobel Prize
+at Bell Labs, but when he started his own company in 1956 he moved
+to Palo Alto to do it.   At the time that was an odd thing to do.
+Why did he?  Because he had grown up there and remembered how nice
+it was.  Now Palo Alto is suburbia, but then it was a charming
+college town-- a charming college town with perfect weather and San
+Francisco only an hour away.The companies that rule Silicon Valley now are all descended in
+various ways from Shockley Semiconductor.  Shockley was a difficult
+man, and in 1957 his top people-- "the traitorous eight"-- left to
+start a new company, Fairchild Semiconductor.  Among them were
+Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce, who went on to found Intel, and
+Eugene Kleiner, who founded the VC firm Kleiner Perkins.  Forty-two
+years later, Kleiner Perkins funded Google, and the partner responsible
+for the deal was John Doerr, who came to Silicon Valley in 1974 to
+work for Intel.So although a lot of the newest companies in Silicon Valley don't
+make anything out of silicon, there always seem to be multiple links
+back to Shockley.  There's a lesson here: startups beget startups.
+People who work for startups start their own.  People who get rich
+from startups fund new ones.  I suspect this kind of organic growth
+is the only way to produce a startup hub, because it's the only way
+to grow the expertise you need.That has two important implications.  The first is that you need
+time to grow a silicon valley.  The university you could create in
+a couple years, but the startup community around it has to grow
+organically.   The cycle time is limited by the time it takes a
+company to succeed, which probably averages about five years.The other implication of the organic growth hypothesis is that you
+can't be somewhat of a startup hub.  You either have a self-sustaining
+chain reaction, or not.  Observation confirms this too: cities
+either have a startup scene, or they don't.  There is no middle
+ground.  Chicago has the third largest metropolitan area in America.
+As source of startups it's negligible compared to Seattle, number 15.The good news is that the initial seed can be quite small.  Shockley
+Semiconductor, though itself not very successful, was big enough.
+It brought a critical mass of experts in an important new technology
+together in a place they liked enough to stay.CompetingOf course, a would-be silicon valley faces an obstacle the original
+one didn't: it has to compete with Silicon Valley.  Can that be
+done?  Probably.One of Silicon Valley's biggest advantages is its venture capital
+firms.  This was not a factor in Shockley's day, because VC funds
+didn't exist.  In fact, Shockley Semiconductor and Fairchild
+Semiconductor were not startups at all in our sense.  They were
+subsidiaries-- of Beckman Instruments and Fairchild Camera and
+Instrument respectively.  Those companies were apparently willing
+to establish subsidiaries wherever the experts wanted to live.Venture investors, however, prefer to fund startups within an hour's
+drive.  For one, they're more likely to notice startups nearby.
+But when they do notice startups in other towns they prefer them
+to move.  They don't want to have to travel to attend board meetings,
+and in any case the odds of succeeding are higher in a startup hub.The centralizing effect of venture firms is a double one: they cause
+startups to form around them, and those draw in more startups through
+acquisitions.  And although the first may be weakening because it's
+now so cheap to start some startups, the second seems as strong as ever.
+Three of the most admired
+"Web 2.0" companies were started outside the usual startup hubs,
+but two of them have already been reeled in through acquisitions.Such centralizing forces make it harder for new silicon valleys to
+get started.  But by no means impossible.  Ultimately power rests
+with the founders.  A startup with the best people will beat one
+with funding from famous VCs, and a startup that was sufficiently
+successful would never have to move.  So a town that
+could exert enough pull over the right people could resist and
+perhaps even surpass Silicon Valley.For all its power, Silicon Valley has a great weakness: the paradise
+Shockley found in 1956 is now one giant parking lot.  San Francisco
+and Berkeley are great, but they're forty miles away.  Silicon
+Valley proper is soul-crushing suburban sprawl.  It
+has fabulous weather, which makes it significantly better than the
+soul-crushing sprawl of most other American cities.  But a competitor
+that managed to avoid sprawl would have real leverage.  All a city
+needs is to be the kind of place the next traitorous eight look at
+and say "I want to stay here," and that would be enough to get the
+chain reaction started.Notes[1]
+It's interesting to consider how low this number could be
+made.  I suspect five hundred would be enough, even if they could
+bring no assets with them.  Probably just thirty, if I could pick them, 
+would be enough to turn Buffalo into a significant startup hub.[2]
+Bureaucrats manage to allocate research funding moderately
+well, but only because (like an in-house VC fund) they outsource
+most of the work of selection.  A professor at a famous university
+who is highly regarded by his peers will get funding, pretty much
+regardless of the proposal.  That wouldn't work for startups, whose
+founders aren't sponsored by organizations, and are often unknowns.[3]
+You'd have to do it all at once, or at least a whole department
+at a time, because people would be more likely to come if they
+knew their friends were.  And you should probably start from scratch,
+rather than trying to upgrade an existing university, or much energy
+would be lost in friction.[4]
+Hypothesis: Any plan in which multiple independent buildings
+are gutted or demolished to be "redeveloped" as a single project
+is a net loss of personality for the city, with the exception of
+the conversion of buildings not previously public, like warehouses.[5]
+A few startups get started in New York, but less
+than a tenth as many per capita as in Boston, and mostly
+in less nerdy fields like finance and media.[6]
+Some blue counties are false positives (reflecting the
+remaining power of Democractic party machines), but there are no
+false negatives.  You can safely write off all the red counties.[7]
+Some "urban renewal" experts took a shot at destroying Boston's
+in the 1960s, leaving the area around city hall a bleak wasteland,
+but most neighborhoods successfully resisted them.Thanks to Chris Anderson, Trevor Blackwell, Marc Hedlund,
+Jessica Livingston, Robert Morris, Greg Mcadoo, Fred Wilson,
+and Stephen Wolfram for
+reading drafts of this, and to Ed Dumbill for inviting me to speak.(The second part of this talk became Why Startups
+Condense in America.)

PaulGrahamEssays/startuplessons.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,395 @@
+April 2006(This essay is derived from a talk at the 2006 
+Startup School.)The startups we've funded so far are pretty quick, but they seem
+quicker to learn some lessons than others.  I think it's because
+some things about startups are kind of counterintuitive.We've now 
+invested 
+in enough companies that I've learned a trick
+for determining which points are the counterintuitive ones:
+they're the ones I have to keep repeating.So I'm going to number these points, and maybe with future startups
+I'll be able to pull off a form of Huffman coding. I'll make them
+all read this, and then instead of nagging them in detail, I'll
+just be able to say: number four!
+1. Release Early.The thing I probably repeat most is this recipe for a startup: get
+a version 1 out fast, then improve it based on users' reactions.By "release early" I don't mean you should release something full
+of bugs, but that you should release something minimal.  Users hate
+bugs, but they don't seem to mind a minimal version 1, if there's
+more coming soon.There are several reasons it pays to get version 1 done fast.  One
+is that this is simply the right way to write software, whether for
+a startup or not.  I've been repeating that since 1993, and I haven't seen much since to
+contradict it.  I've seen a lot of startups die because they were
+too slow to release stuff, and none because they were too quick.
+[1]One of the things that will surprise you if you build something
+popular is that you won't know your users.  Reddit now has almost half a million
+unique visitors a month.  Who are all those people?  They have no
+idea.  No web startup does.  And since you don't know your users,
+it's dangerous to guess what they'll like.  Better to release
+something and let them tell you.Wufoo took this to heart and released
+their form-builder before the underlying database.  You can't even
+drive the thing yet, but 83,000 people came to sit in the driver's
+seat and hold the steering wheel.  And Wufoo got valuable feedback
+from it: Linux users complained they used too much Flash, so they
+rewrote their software not to.  If they'd waited to release everything
+at once, they wouldn't have discovered this problem till it was
+more deeply wired in.Even if you had no users, it would still be important to release
+quickly, because for a startup the initial release acts as a shakedown
+cruise.  If anything major is broken-- if the idea's no good,
+for example, or the founders hate one another-- the stress of getting
+that first version out will expose it.  And if you have such problems
+you want to find them early.Perhaps the most important reason to release early, though, is that
+it makes you work harder.  When you're working on something that
+isn't released, problems are intriguing.  In something that's out
+there, problems are alarming.  There is a lot more urgency once you
+release.  And I think that's precisely why people put it off.  They
+know they'll have to work a lot harder once they do. 
+[2]
+2. Keep Pumping Out Features.Of course, "release early" has a second component, without which
+it would be bad advice.  If you're going to start with something
+that doesn't do much, you better improve it fast.What I find myself repeating is "pump out features."  And this rule
+isn't just for the initial stages.  This is something all startups
+should do for as long as they want to be considered startups.I don't mean, of course, that you should make your application ever
+more complex.  By "feature" I mean one unit of hacking-- one quantum
+of making users' lives better.As with exercise, improvements beget improvements.  If you run every
+day, you'll probably feel like running tomorrow.  But if you skip
+running for a couple weeks, it will be an effort to drag yourself
+out.  So it is with hacking: the more ideas you implement, the more
+ideas you'll have.  You should make your system better at least in
+some small way every day or two.This is not just a good way to get development done; it is also a
+form of marketing.  Users love a site that's constantly improving.
+In fact, users expect a site to improve.  Imagine if you visited a
+site that seemed very good, and then returned two months later and
+not one thing had changed.  Wouldn't it start to seem lame? 
+[3]They'll like you even better when you improve in response to their
+comments, because customers are used to companies ignoring them.
+If you're the rare exception-- a company that actually listens--
+you'll generate fanatical loyalty.  You won't need to advertise,
+because your users will do it for you.This seems obvious too, so why do I have to keep repeating it?  I
+think the problem here is that people get used to how things are.
+Once a product gets past the stage where it has glaring flaws, you
+start to get used to it, and gradually whatever features it happens
+to have become its identity.  For example, I doubt many people at
+Yahoo (or Google for that matter) realized how much better web mail
+could be till Paul Buchheit showed them.I think the solution is to assume that anything you've made is far
+short of what it could be.  Force yourself, as a sort of intellectual
+exercise, to keep thinking of improvements.  Ok, sure, what you
+have is perfect.  But if you had to change something, what would
+it be?If your product seems finished, there are two possible explanations:
+(a) it is finished, or (b) you lack imagination.  Experience suggests
+(b) is a thousand times more likely.
+3. Make Users Happy.Improving constantly is an instance of a more general rule: make
+users happy.  One thing all startups have in common is that they
+can't force anyone to do anything.  They can't force anyone to use
+their software, and they can't force anyone to do deals with them.
+A startup has to sing for its supper.  That's why the successful
+ones make great things.  They have to, or die.When you're running a startup you feel like a little bit of debris
+blown about by powerful winds.  The most powerful wind is users.
+They can either catch you and loft you up into the sky, as they did
+with Google, or leave you flat on the pavement, as they do with
+most startups.  Users are a fickle wind, but more powerful than any
+other.  If they take you up, no competitor can keep you down.As a little piece of debris, the rational thing for you to do is
+not to lie flat, but to curl yourself into a shape the wind will
+catch.I like the wind metaphor because it reminds you how impersonal the
+stream of traffic is.  The vast majority of people who visit your
+site will be casual visitors.  It's them you have to design your
+site for.  The people who really care will find what they want by
+themselves.The median visitor will arrive with their finger poised on the Back
+button.  Think about your own experience: most links you
+follow lead to something lame.  Anyone who has used the web for
+more than a couple weeks has been trained to click on Back after
+following a link.  So your site has to say "Wait!  Don't click on
+Back.  This site isn't lame.  Look at this, for example."There are two things you have to do to make people pause.  The most
+important is to explain, as concisely as possible, what the hell
+your site is about.  How often have you visited a site that seemed
+to assume you already knew what they did?  For example, the corporate
+site that says the
+company makes
+
+  enterprise content management solutions for business that enable
+  organizations to unify people, content and processes to minimize
+  business risk, accelerate time-to-value and sustain lower total
+  cost of ownership.
+
+An established company may get away with such an opaque description,
+but no startup can.  A startup
+should be able to explain in one or two sentences exactly what it
+does. 
+[4]
+And not just to users.  You need this for everyone:
+investors, acquirers, partners, reporters, potential employees, and
+even current employees.  You probably shouldn't even start a company
+to do something that can't be described compellingly in one or two
+sentences.The other thing I repeat is to give people everything you've got,
+right away.  If you have something impressive, try to put it on the
+front page, because that's the only one most visitors will see.
+Though indeed there's a paradox here: the more you push the good
+stuff toward the front, the more likely visitors are to explore
+further. 
+[5]In the best case these two suggestions get combined: you tell
+visitors what your site is about by showing them.  One of the
+standard pieces of advice in fiction writing is "show, don't tell."
+Don't say that a character's angry; have him grind his teeth, or
+break his pencil in half.  Nothing will explain what your site does
+so well as using it.The industry term here is "conversion."  The job of your site is
+to convert casual visitors into users-- whatever your definition
+of a user is.  You can measure this in your growth rate.  Either
+your site is catching on, or it isn't, and you must know which.  If
+you have decent growth, you'll win in the end, no matter how obscure
+you are now.  And if you don't, you need to fix something.
+4. Fear the Right Things.Another thing I find myself saying a lot is "don't worry."  Actually,
+it's more often "don't worry about this; worry about that instead."
+Startups are right to be paranoid, but they sometimes fear the wrong
+things.Most visible disasters are not so alarming as they seem.  Disasters
+are normal in a startup: a founder quits, you discover a patent
+that covers what you're doing, your servers keep crashing, you run
+into an insoluble technical problem, you have to change your name,
+a deal falls through-- these are all par for the course.  They won't
+kill you unless you let them.Nor will most competitors.  A lot of startups worry "what if Google
+builds something like us?"  Actually big companies are not the ones
+you have to worry about-- not even Google.  The people at Google
+are smart, but no smarter than you; they're not as motivated, because
+Google is not going to go out of business if this one product fails;
+and even at Google they have a lot of bureaucracy to slow them down.What you should fear, as a startup, is not the established players,
+but other startups you don't know exist yet.  They're way more
+dangerous than Google because, like you, they're cornered animals.Looking just at existing competitors can give you a false sense of
+security.  You should compete against what someone else could be
+doing, not just what you can see people doing.  A corollary is that
+you shouldn't relax just because you have no visible competitors
+yet.  No matter what your idea, there's someone else out there
+working on the same thing.That's the downside of it being easier to start a startup: more people
+are doing it.  But I disagree with Caterina Fake when she says that
+makes this a bad time to start a startup.  More people are starting
+startups, but not as many more as could.  Most college graduates
+still think they have to get a job.  The average person can't ignore
+something that's been beaten into their head since they were three
+just because serving web pages recently got a lot cheaper.And in any case, competitors are not the biggest threat.  Way more
+startups hose themselves than get crushed by competitors.  There
+are a lot of ways to do it, but the three main ones are internal
+disputes, inertia, and ignoring users.  Each is, by itself, enough
+to kill you.  But if I had to pick the worst, it would be ignoring
+users.  If you want a recipe for a startup that's going to die,
+here it is: a couple of founders who have some great idea they know
+everyone is going to love, and that's what they're going to build,
+no matter what.Almost everyone's initial plan is broken.  If companies stuck to
+their initial plans, Microsoft would be selling programming languages,
+and Apple would be selling printed circuit boards.  In both cases
+their customers told them what their business should be-- and they
+were smart enough to listen.As Richard Feynman said, the imagination of nature is greater than
+the imagination of man.  You'll find more interesting things by
+looking at the world than you could ever produce just by thinking.
+This principle is very powerful.  It's why the best abstract painting
+still falls short of Leonardo, for example.  And it applies to
+startups too.  No idea for a product could ever be so clever as the
+ones you can discover by smashing a beam of prototypes into a beam
+of users.
+5. Commitment Is a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.I now have enough experience with startups to be able to say what
+the most important quality is in a startup founder, and it's not
+what you might think.  The most important quality in a startup
+founder is determination.  Not intelligence-- determination.This is a little depressing.  I'd like to believe Viaweb succeeded
+because we were smart, not merely determined.  A lot of people in
+the startup world want to believe that.  Not just founders, but
+investors too.  They like the idea of inhabiting a world ruled by
+intelligence.  And you can tell they really believe this, because
+it affects their investment decisions.Time after time VCs invest in startups founded by eminent professors.
+This may work in biotech, where a lot of startups simply commercialize
+existing research, but in software you want to invest in students,
+not professors.  Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google were all founded by
+people who dropped out of school to do it.  What students lack in
+experience they more than make up in dedication.Of course, if you want to get rich, it's not enough merely to be
+determined.  You have to be smart too, right?  I'd like to think
+so, but I've had an experience that convinced me otherwise: I spent
+several years living in New York.You can lose quite a lot in the brains department and it won't kill
+you.  But lose even a little bit in the commitment department, and
+that will kill you very rapidly.Running a startup is like walking on your hands: it's possible, but
+it requires extraordinary effort.  If an ordinary employee were
+asked to do the things a startup founder has to, he'd be very
+indignant.  Imagine if you were hired at some big company, and in
+addition to writing software ten times faster than you'd ever had
+to before, they expected you to answer support calls, administer
+the servers, design the web site, cold-call customers, find the
+company office space, and go out and get everyone lunch.And to do all this not in the calm, womb-like atmosphere of a big
+company, but against a backdrop of constant disasters.  That's the
+part that really demands determination.  In a startup, there's
+always some disaster happening.  So if you're the least bit inclined
+to find an excuse to quit, there's always one right there.But if you lack commitment, chances are it will have been hurting
+you long before you actually quit.  Everyone who deals with startups
+knows how important commitment is, so if they sense you're ambivalent,
+they won't give you much attention.  If you lack commitment, you'll
+just find that for some mysterious reason good things happen to
+your competitors but not to you.  If you lack commitment, it will
+seem to you that you're unlucky.Whereas if you're determined to stick around, people will pay
+attention to you, because odds are they'll have to deal with you
+later.  You're a local, not just a tourist, so everyone has to come
+to terms with you.At Y Combinator we sometimes mistakenly fund teams who have the
+attitude that they're going to give this startup thing a shot for
+three months, and if something great happens, they'll stick with
+it-- "something great" meaning either that someone wants to buy
+them or invest millions of dollars in them.  But if this is your
+attitude, "something great" is very unlikely to happen to you,
+because both acquirers and investors judge you by your level of
+commitment.If an acquirer thinks you're going to stick around no matter what,
+they'll be more likely to buy you, because if they don't and you
+stick around, you'll probably grow, your price will go up, and
+they'll be left wishing they'd bought you earlier.  Ditto for
+investors.  What really motivates investors, even big VCs, is not
+the hope of good returns, but the fear of missing out. 
+[6]
+So if
+you make it clear you're going to succeed no matter what, and the only
+reason you need them is to make it happen a little faster, you're
+much more likely to get money.You can't fake this.  The only way to convince everyone that you're
+ready to fight to the death is actually to be ready to.You have to be the right kind of determined, though.  I carefully
+chose the word determined rather than stubborn, because stubbornness
+is a disastrous quality in a startup.  You have to be determined,
+but flexible, like a running back.  A successful running back doesn't
+just put his head down and try to run through people.  He improvises:
+if someone appears in front of him, he runs around them; if someone
+tries to grab him, he spins out of their grip; he'll even run in
+the wrong direction briefly if that will help.  The one thing he'll
+never do is stand still. 
+[7]
+6. There Is Always Room.I was talking recently to a startup founder about whether it might
+be good to add a social component to their software.  He said he
+didn't think so, because the whole social thing was tapped out.
+Really?  So in a hundred years the only social networking sites
+will be the Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, and Del.icio.us?  Not likely.There is always room for new stuff.  At every point in history,
+even the darkest bits of the dark ages, people were discovering
+things that made everyone say "why didn't anyone think of that
+before?"  We know this continued to be true up till 2004, when the
+Facebook was founded-- though strictly speaking someone else did
+think of that.The reason we don't see the opportunities all around us is that we
+adjust to however things are, and assume that's how things have to
+be.  For example, it would seem crazy to most people to try to make
+a better search engine than Google.  Surely that field, at least,
+is tapped out.  Really?  In a hundred years-- or even twenty-- are
+people still going to search for information using something like
+the current Google?  Even Google probably doesn't think that.In particular, I don't think there's any limit to the number of
+startups.  Sometimes you hear people saying "All these guys starting
+startups now are going to be disappointed. How many little startups
+are Google and Yahoo going to buy, after all?" That sounds cleverly
+skeptical, but I can prove it's mistaken.  No one proposes that
+there's some limit to the number of people who can be employed in
+an economy consisting of big, slow-moving companies with a couple
+thousand people each.  Why should there be any limit to the number
+who could be employed by small, fast-moving companies with ten each?
+It seems to me the only limit would be the number of people who
+want to work that hard.The limit on the number of startups is not the number that can get
+acquired by Google and Yahoo-- though it seems even that should
+be unlimited, if the startups were actually worth buying-- but the
+amount of wealth that can be created.  And I don't think there's
+any limit on that, except cosmological ones.So for all practical purposes, there is no limit to the number of
+startups.  Startups make wealth, which means they make things people
+want, and if there's a limit on the number of things people want,
+we are nowhere near it.  I still don't even have a flying car.
+7. Don't Get Your Hopes Up.This is another one I've been repeating since long before Y Combinator.
+It was practically the corporate motto at Viaweb.Startup founders are naturally optimistic.  They wouldn't do it
+otherwise.  But you should treat your optimism the way you'd treat
+the core of a nuclear reactor: as a source of power that's also
+very dangerous.  You have to build a shield around it, or it will
+fry you.The shielding of a reactor is not uniform; the reactor would be
+useless if it were.  It's pierced in a few places to let pipes in.
+An optimism shield has to be pierced too.  I think the place to
+draw the line is between what you expect of yourself, and what you
+expect of other people.  It's ok to be optimistic about what you
+can do, but assume the worst about machines and other people.This is particularly necessary in a startup, because you tend to
+be pushing the limits of whatever you're doing.  So things don't
+happen in the smooth, predictable way they do in the rest of the
+world.  Things change suddenly, and usually for the worse.Shielding your optimism is nowhere more important than with deals.
+If your startup is doing a deal, just assume it's not going to
+happen.  The VCs who say they're going to invest in you aren't.
+The company that says they're going to buy you isn't.  The big
+customer who wants to use your system in their whole company won't.
+Then if things work out you can be pleasantly surprised.The reason I warn startups not to get their hopes up is not to save
+them from being disappointed when things fall through.  It's
+for a more practical reason: to prevent them from leaning their
+company against something that's going to fall over, taking them
+with it.For example, if someone says they want to invest in you, there's a
+natural tendency to stop looking for other investors.  That's why
+people proposing deals seem so positive: they want you to
+stop looking.  And you want to stop too, because doing deals is a
+pain.  Raising money, in particular, is a huge time sink.  So you
+have to consciously force yourself to keep looking.Even if you ultimately do the first deal, it will be to your advantage
+to have kept looking, because you'll get better terms.  Deals are
+dynamic; unless you're negotiating with someone unusually honest,
+there's not a single point where you shake hands and the deal's
+done. There are usually a lot of subsidiary questions to be cleared
+up after the handshake, and if the other side senses weakness-- if
+they sense you need this deal-- they will be very tempted to screw
+you in the details.VCs and corp dev guys are professional negotiators.  They're trained
+to take advantage of weakness. 
+[8]
+So while they're often nice
+guys, they just can't help it.  And as pros they do this more than
+you.  So don't even try to bluff them.  The only way a startup can
+have any leverage in a deal is genuinely not to need it.  And if
+you don't believe in a deal, you'll be less likely to depend on it.So I want to plant a hypnotic suggestion in your heads: when you
+hear someone say the words "we want to invest in you" or "we want
+to acquire you," I want the following phrase to appear automatically
+in your head: don't get your hopes up.  Just continue running
+your company as if this deal didn't exist.  Nothing is more likely
+to make it close.The way to succeed in a startup is to focus on the goal of getting
+lots of users, and keep walking swiftly toward it while investors
+and acquirers scurry alongside trying to wave money in your face.
+Speed, not MoneyThe way I've described it, starting a startup sounds pretty stressful.
+It is.  When I talk to the founders of the companies we've funded,
+they all say the same thing: I knew it would be hard, but I didn't
+realize it would be this hard.So why do it?  It would be worth enduring a lot of pain and stress
+to do something grand or heroic, but just to make money?  Is making
+money really that important?No, not really.  It seems ridiculous to me when people take business
+too seriously.  I regard making money as a boring errand to be got
+out of the way as soon as possible.  There is nothing grand or
+heroic about starting a startup per se.So why do I spend so much time thinking about startups?  I'll tell
+you why.  Economically, a startup is best seen not as a way to get
+rich, but as a way to work faster.  You have to make a living, and
+a startup is a way to get that done quickly, instead of letting it
+drag on through your whole life.
+[9]We take it for granted most of the time, but human life is fairly
+miraculous.  It is also palpably short.  You're given this marvellous
+thing, and then poof, it's taken away.  You can see why people
+invent gods to explain it.  But even to people who don't believe
+in gods, life commands respect.  There are times in most of our
+lives when the days go by in a blur, and almost everyone has a
+sense, when this happens, of wasting something precious.  As Ben
+Franklin said, if you love life, don't waste time, because time is
+what life is made of.So no, there's nothing particularly grand about making money.  That's
+not what makes startups worth the trouble.  What's important about
+startups is the speed.  By compressing the dull but necessary task
+of making a living into the smallest possible time, you show respect
+for life, and there is something grand about that.Notes[1]
+Startups can die from releasing something full of bugs, and not
+fixing them fast enough, but I don't know of any that died from
+releasing something stable but minimal very early, then promptly
+improving it.[2]
+I know this is why I haven't released Arc.  The moment I do,
+I'll have people nagging me for features.[3]
+A web site is different from a book or movie or desktop application
+in this respect.  Users judge a site not as a single snapshot, but
+as an animation with multiple frames.  Of the two, I'd say the rate of
+improvement is more important to users than where you currently
+are.[4]
+It should not always tell this to users, however.  For example,
+MySpace is basically a replacement mall for mallrats.  But it was
+wiser for them, initially, to pretend that the site was about bands.[5]
+Similarly, don't make users register to try your site.  Maybe
+what you have is so valuable that visitors should gladly register
+to get at it.  But they've been trained to expect the opposite.
+Most of the things they've tried on the web have sucked-- and
+probably especially those that made them register.[6]
+VCs have rational reasons for behaving this way. They don't
+make their money (if they make money) off their median investments.
+In a typical fund, half the companies fail, most of the rest generate
+mediocre returns, and one or two "make the fund" by succeeding
+spectacularly.  So if they miss just a few of the most promising
+opportunities, it could hose the whole fund.[7]
+The attitude of a running back doesn't translate to soccer.
+Though it looks great when a forward dribbles past multiple defenders,
+a player who persists in trying such things will do worse in the
+long term than one who passes.[8]
+The reason Y Combinator never negotiates valuations
+is that we're not professional negotiators, and don't want to turn
+into them.[9]
+There are two ways to do 
+work you love: (a) to make money, then work
+on what you love, or (b) to get a job where you get paid to work on
+stuff you love.  In practice the first phases of both
+consist mostly of unedifying schleps, and in (b) the second phase is less
+secure.Thanks to Sam Altman, Trevor Blackwell, Beau Hartshorne, Jessica 
+Livingston, and Robert Morris for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/submarine.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,217 @@
+April 2005"Suits make a corporate comeback," says the New
+York Times.  Why does this sound familiar?  Maybe because
+the suit was also back in February,
+
+September
+2004, June
+2004, March
+2004, September
+2003, 
+
+November
+2002, 
+April 2002,
+and February
+2002.
+
+Why do the media keep running stories saying suits are back?  Because
+PR firms tell 
+them to.  One of the most surprising things I discovered
+during my brief business career was the existence of the PR industry,
+lurking like a huge, quiet submarine beneath the news.  Of the
+stories you read in traditional media that aren't about politics,
+crimes, or disasters, more than half probably come from PR firms.I know because I spent years hunting such "press hits."  Our startup spent
+its entire marketing budget on PR: at a time when we were assembling
+our own computers to save money, we were paying a PR firm $16,000
+a month.  And they were worth it.  PR is the news equivalent of
+search engine optimization; instead of buying ads, which readers
+ignore, you get yourself inserted directly into the stories.  [1]Our PR firm
+was one of the best in the business.  In 18 months, they got press
+hits in over 60 different publications.  
+And we weren't the only ones they did great things for.  
+In 1997 I got a call from another
+startup founder considering hiring them to promote his company.  I
+told him they were PR gods, worth every penny of their outrageous   
+fees.  But I remember thinking his company's name was odd.
+Why call an auction site "eBay"?
+SymbiosisPR is not dishonest.  Not quite.  In fact, the reason the best PR
+firms are so effective is precisely that they aren't dishonest.
+They give reporters genuinely valuable information.  A good PR firm
+won't bug reporters just because the client tells them to; they've
+worked hard to build their credibility with reporters, and they
+don't want to destroy it by feeding them mere propaganda.If anyone is dishonest, it's the reporters.  The main reason PR  
+firms exist is that reporters are lazy.  Or, to put it more nicely,
+overworked.  Really they ought to be out there digging up stories
+for themselves.  But it's so tempting to sit in their offices and
+let PR firms bring the stories to them.  After all, they know good
+PR firms won't lie to them.A good flatterer doesn't lie, but tells his victim selective truths
+(what a nice color your eyes are). Good PR firms use the same
+strategy: they give reporters stories that are true, but whose truth
+favors their clients.For example, our PR firm often pitched stories about how the Web  
+let small merchants compete with big ones.  This was perfectly true.
+But the reason reporters ended up writing stories about this
+particular truth, rather than some other one, was that small merchants
+were our target market, and we were paying the piper.Different publications vary greatly in their reliance on PR firms.
+At the bottom of the heap are the trade press, who make most of
+their money from advertising and would give the magazines away for
+free if advertisers would let them.  [2] The average
+trade publication is a  bunch of ads, glued together by just enough
+articles to make it look like a magazine.  They're so desperate for
+"content" that some will print your press releases almost verbatim,
+if you take the trouble to write them to read like articles.At the other extreme are publications like the New York Times
+and the Wall Street Journal.  Their reporters do go out and
+find their own stories, at least some of the time.  They'll listen 
+to PR firms, but briefly and skeptically.  We managed to get press   
+hits in almost every publication we wanted, but we never managed 
+to crack the print edition of the Times.  [3]The weak point of the top reporters is not laziness, but vanity.
+You don't pitch stories to them.  You have to approach them as if
+you were a specimen under their all-seeing microscope, and make it
+seem as if the story you want them to run is something they thought 
+of themselves.Our greatest PR coup was a two-part one.  We estimated, based on
+some fairly informal math, that there were about 5000 stores on the
+Web.  We got one paper to print this number, which seemed neutral   
+enough.  But once this "fact" was out there in print, we could quote
+it to other publications, and claim that with 1000 users we had 20%
+of the online store market.This was roughly true.  We really did have the biggest share of the
+online store market, and 5000 was our best guess at its size.  But
+the way the story appeared in the press sounded a lot more definite.Reporters like definitive statements.  For example, many of the
+stories about Jeremy Jaynes's conviction say that he was one of the
+10 worst spammers.  This "fact" originated in Spamhaus's ROKSO list,
+which I think even Spamhaus would admit is a rough guess at the top
+spammers.  The first stories about Jaynes cited this source, but
+now it's simply repeated as if it were part of the indictment.   
+[4]All you can say with certainty about Jaynes is that he was a fairly
+big spammer.  But reporters don't want to print vague stuff like
+"fairly big."  They want statements with punch, like "top ten." And
+PR firms give them what they want.
+Wearing suits, we're told, will make us 
+3.6
+percent more productive.BuzzWhere the work of PR firms really does get deliberately misleading is in
+the generation of "buzz."  They usually feed the same story to    
+several different publications at once.  And when readers see similar
+stories in multiple places, they think there is some important trend
+afoot.  Which is exactly what they're supposed to think.When Windows 95 was launched, people waited outside stores
+at midnight to buy the first copies.  None of them would have been
+there without PR firms, who generated such a buzz in
+the news media that it became self-reinforcing, like a nuclear chain
+reaction.I doubt PR firms realize it yet, but the Web makes it possible to  
+track them at work.  If you search for the obvious phrases, you
+turn up several efforts over the years to place stories about the  
+return of the suit.  For example, the Reuters article 
+
+that got picked up by USA
+Today in September 2004.  "The suit is back," it begins.Trend articles like this are almost always the work of
+PR firms.  Once you know how to read them, it's straightforward to
+figure out who the client is.  With trend stories, PR firms usually
+line up one or more "experts" to talk about the industry generally. 
+In this case we get three: the NPD Group, the creative director of
+GQ, and a research director at Smith Barney.  [5] When
+you get to the end of the experts, look for the client. And bingo, 
+there it is: The Men's Wearhouse.Not surprising, considering The Men's Wearhouse was at that moment 
+running ads saying "The Suit is Back."  Talk about a successful
+press hit-- a wire service article whose first sentence is your own
+ad copy.The secret to finding other press hits from a given pitch
+is to realize that they all started from the same document back at
+the PR firm.  Search for a few key phrases and the names of the
+clients and the experts, and you'll turn up other variants of this 
+story.Casual
+fridays are out and dress codes are in writes Diane E. Lewis
+in The Boston Globe.  In a remarkable coincidence, Ms. Lewis's
+industry contacts also include the creative director of GQ.Ripped jeans and T-shirts are out, writes Mary Kathleen Flynn in
+US News & World Report.  And she too knows the 
+creative director of GQ.Men's suits
+are back writes Nicole Ford in Sexbuzz.Com ("the ultimate men's
+entertainment magazine").Dressing
+down loses appeal as men suit up at the office writes Tenisha
+Mercer of The Detroit News.
+Now that so many news articles are online, I suspect you could find
+a similar pattern for most trend stories placed by PR firms.  I
+propose we call this new sport "PR diving," and I'm sure there are
+far more striking examples out there than this clump of five stories.OnlineAfter spending years chasing them, it's now second nature
+to me to recognize press hits for what they are.  But before we
+hired a PR firm I had no idea where articles in the mainstream media
+came from.  I could tell a lot of them were crap, but I didn't
+realize why.Remember the exercises in critical reading you did in school, where
+you had to look at a piece of writing and step back and ask whether
+the author was telling the whole truth?  If you really want to be
+a critical reader, it turns out you have to step back one step
+further, and ask not just whether the author is telling the truth,
+but why he's writing about this subject at all.Online, the answer tends to be a lot simpler.  Most people who
+publish online write what they write for the simple reason that
+they want to.  You
+can't see the fingerprints of PR firms all over the articles, as
+you can in so many print publications-- which is one of the reasons,
+though they may not consciously realize it, that readers trust
+bloggers more than Business Week.I was talking recently to a friend who works for a
+big newspaper.  He thought the print media were in serious trouble,
+and that they were still mostly in denial about it.  "They think
+the decline is cyclic," he said.  "Actually it's structural."In other words, the readers are leaving, and they're not coming
+back.
+Why? I think the main reason is that the writing online is more honest.
+Imagine how incongruous the New York Times article about
+suits would sound if you read it in a blog:
+   The urge to look corporate-- sleek, commanding,
+  prudent, yet with just a touch of hubris on your well-cut sleeve--
+  is an unexpected development in a time of business disgrace.
+   
+The problem
+with this article is not just that it originated in a PR firm.
+The whole tone is bogus.  This is the tone of someone writing down
+to their audience.Whatever its flaws, the writing you find online
+is authentic.  It's not mystery meat cooked up
+out of scraps of pitch letters and press releases, and pressed into 
+molds of zippy
+journalese.  It's people writing what they think.I didn't realize, till there was an alternative, just how artificial
+most of the writing in the mainstream media was.  I'm not saying
+I used to believe what I read in Time and Newsweek.  Since high
+school, at least, I've thought of magazines like that more as
+guides to what ordinary people were being
+told to think than as  
+sources of information.  But I didn't realize till the last  
+few years that writing for publication didn't have to mean writing
+that way.  I didn't realize you could write as candidly and
+informally as you would if you were writing to a friend.Readers aren't the only ones who've noticed the
+change.  The PR industry has too.
+A hilarious article
+on the site of the PR Society of America gets to the heart of the   
+matter:
+   Bloggers are sensitive about becoming mouthpieces
+  for other organizations and companies, which is the reason they
+  began blogging in the first place.  
+PR people fear bloggers for the same reason readers
+like them.  And that means there may be a struggle ahead.  As
+this new kind of writing draws readers away from traditional media, we
+should be prepared for whatever PR mutates into to compensate.  
+When I think   
+how hard PR firms work to score press hits in the traditional   
+media, I can't imagine they'll work any less hard to feed stories
+to bloggers, if they can figure out how.
+Notes[1] PR has at least   
+one beneficial feature: it favors small companies.  If PR didn't  
+work, the only alternative would be to advertise, and only big
+companies can afford that.[2] Advertisers pay 
+less for ads in free publications, because they assume readers 
+ignore something they get for free.  This is why so many trade
+publications nominally have a cover price and yet give away free
+subscriptions with such abandon.[3] Different sections
+of the Times vary so much in their standards that they're
+practically different papers.  Whoever fed the style section reporter
+this story about suits coming back would have been sent packing by
+the regular news reporters.[4] The most striking
+example I know of this type is the "fact" that the Internet worm   
+of 1988 infected 6000 computers. I was there when it was cooked up,
+and this was the recipe: someone guessed that there were about
+60,000 computers attached to the Internet, and that the worm might
+have infected ten percent of them.Actually no one knows how many computers the worm infected, because
+the remedy was to reboot them, and this destroyed all traces.  But
+people like numbers.  And so this one is now replicated
+all over the Internet, like a little worm of its own.[5] Not all were
+necessarily supplied by the PR firm. Reporters sometimes call a few
+additional sources on their own, like someone adding a few fresh 
+vegetables to a can of soup.
+Thanks to Ingrid Basset, Trevor Blackwell, Sarah Harlin, Jessica 
+Livingston, Jackie McDonough, Robert Morris, and Aaron Swartz (who
+also found the PRSA article) for reading drafts of this.Correction: Earlier versions used a recent
+Business Week article mentioning del.icio.us as an example
+of a press hit, but Joshua Schachter tells me 
+it was spontaneous.

PaulGrahamEssays/sun.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+September 2017The most valuable insights are both general and surprising. 
+F = ma for example. But general and surprising is a hard
+combination to achieve. That territory tends to be picked
+clean, precisely because those insights are so valuable.Ordinarily, the best that people can do is one without the
+other: either surprising without being general (e.g.
+gossip), or general without being surprising (e.g.
+platitudes).Where things get interesting is the moderately valuable
+insights.  You get those from small additions of whichever
+quality was missing.  The more common case is a small
+addition of generality: a piece of gossip that's more than
+just gossip, because it teaches something interesting about
+the world. But another less common approach is to focus on
+the most general ideas and see if you can find something new
+to say about them. Because these start out so general, you
+only need a small delta of novelty to produce a useful
+insight.A small delta of novelty is all you'll be able to get most
+of the time. Which means if you take this route, your ideas
+will seem a lot like ones that already exist. Sometimes
+you'll find you've merely rediscovered an idea that did
+already exist.  But don't be discouraged.  Remember the huge
+multiplier that kicks in when you do manage to think of
+something even a little new.Corollary: the more general the ideas you're talking about,
+the less you should worry about repeating yourself.  If you
+write enough, it's inevitable you will.  Your brain is much
+the same from year to year and so are the stimuli that hit
+it. I feel slightly bad when I find I've said something
+close to what I've said before, as if I were plagiarizing
+myself. But rationally one shouldn't.  You won't say
+something exactly the same way the second time, and that
+variation increases the chance you'll get that tiny but
+critical delta of novelty.And of course, ideas beget ideas.  (That sounds 
+familiar.)
+An idea with a small amount of novelty could lead to one
+with more. But only if you keep going. So it's doubly
+important not to let yourself be discouraged by people who
+say there's not much new about something you've discovered.
+"Not much new" is a real achievement when you're talking
+about the most general ideas. It's not true that there's nothing new under the sun.  There
+are some domains where there's almost nothing new.  But
+there's a big difference between nothing and almost nothing,
+when it's multiplied by the area under the sun.
+Thanks to Sam Altman, Patrick Collison, and Jessica
+Livingston for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/superangels.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,302 @@
+
+
+Want to start a startup?  Get funded by
+Y Combinator.
+
+
+
+
+October 2010After barely changing at all for decades, the startup funding
+business is now in what could, at least by comparison, be called
+turmoil.  At Y Combinator we've seen dramatic changes in the funding
+environment for startups.  Fortunately one of them is much higher
+valuations.The trends we've been seeing are probably not YC-specific.  I wish
+I could say they were, but the main cause is probably just that we
+see trends first—partly because the startups we fund are very
+plugged into the Valley and are quick to take advantage of anything
+new, and partly because we fund so many that we have enough data
+points to see patterns clearly.What we're seeing now, everyone's probably going to be seeing in
+the next couple years.  So I'm going to explain what we're seeing,
+and what that will mean for you if you try to raise money.Super-AngelsLet me start by describing what the world of startup funding used
+to look like.  There used to be two sharply differentiated types
+of investors: angels and venture capitalists.  Angels are individual
+rich people who invest small amounts of their own money, while VCs
+are employees of funds that invest large amounts of other people's.For decades there were just those two types of investors, but now
+a third type has appeared halfway between them: the so-called
+super-angels. 
+[1]
+  And VCs have been provoked by their arrival
+into making a lot of angel-style investments themselves.  So the
+previously sharp line between angels and VCs has become hopelessly
+blurred.There used to be a no man's land between angels and VCs.  Angels
+would invest $20k to $50k apiece, and VCs usually a million or more.
+So an angel round meant a collection of angel investments that
+combined to maybe $200k, and a VC round meant a series A round in
+which a single VC fund (or occasionally two) invested $1-5 million.The no man's land between angels and VCs was a very inconvenient
+one for startups, because it coincided with the amount many wanted
+to raise.  Most startups coming out of Demo Day wanted to raise
+around $400k.  But it was a pain to stitch together that much out
+of angel investments, and most VCs weren't interested in investments
+so small.  That's the fundamental reason the super-angels have
+appeared.  They're responding to the market.The arrival of a new type of investor is big news for startups,
+because there used to be only two and they rarely competed with one
+another.  Super-angels compete with both angels and VCs.  That's
+going to change the rules about how to raise money.  I don't know
+yet what the new rules will be, but it looks like most of the changes
+will be for the better.A super-angel has some of the qualities of an angel, and some of
+the qualities of a VC.  They're usually individuals, like angels.
+In fact many of the current super-angels were initially angels of
+the classic type.  But like VCs, they invest other people's money.
+This allows them to invest larger amounts than angels:  a typical
+super-angel investment is currently about $100k.  They make investment
+decisions quickly, like angels.  And they make a lot more investments
+per partner than VCs—up to 10 times as many.The fact that super-angels invest other people's money makes them
+doubly alarming to VCs. They don't just compete for startups; they
+also compete for investors.  What super-angels really are is a new
+form of fast-moving, lightweight VC fund.   And those of us in the
+technology world know what usually happens when something comes
+along that can be described in terms like that.  Usually it's the
+replacement.Will it be?  As of now, few of the startups that take money from
+super-angels are ruling out taking VC money.  They're just postponing
+it.  But that's still a problem for VCs.  Some of the startups that
+postpone raising VC money may do so well on the angel money they
+raise that they never bother to raise more.  And those who do raise
+VC rounds will be able to get higher valuations when they do.  If
+the best startups get 10x higher valuations when they raise series
+A rounds, that would cut VCs' returns from winners at least tenfold.
+[2]So I think VC funds are seriously threatened by the super-angels.
+But one thing that may save them to some extent is the uneven
+distribution of startup outcomes: practically all the returns are
+concentrated in a few big successes.  The expected value of a startup
+is the percentage chance it's Google.  So to the extent that winning
+is a matter of absolute returns, the super-angels could win practically
+all the battles for individual startups and yet lose the war, if
+they merely failed to get those few big winners.  And there's a
+chance that could happen, because the top VC funds have better
+brands, and can also do more for their portfolio companies.  
+[3]Because super-angels make more investments per partner, they have
+less partner per investment.  They can't pay as much attention to
+you as a VC on your board could.  How much is that extra attention
+worth?  It will vary enormously from one partner to another.  There's
+no consensus yet in the general case.  So for now this is something
+startups are deciding individually.Till now, VCs' claims about how much value they added were sort of
+like the government's.  Maybe they made you feel better, but you
+had no choice in the matter, if you needed money on the scale only
+VCs could supply.  Now that VCs have competitors, that's going to
+put a market price on the help they offer.  The interesting thing
+is, no one knows yet what it will be.Do startups that want to get really big need the sort of advice and
+connections only the top VCs can supply?  Or would super-angel money
+do just as well?  The VCs will say you need them, and the super-angels
+will say you don't.  But the truth is, no one knows yet, not even
+the VCs and super-angels themselves.   All the super-angels know
+is that their new model seems promising enough to be worth trying,
+and all the VCs know is that it seems promising enough to worry
+about.RoundsWhatever the outcome, the conflict between VCs and super-angels is
+good news for founders.  And not just for the obvious reason that
+more competition for deals means better terms.  The whole shape of
+deals is changing.One of the biggest differences between angels and VCs is the amount
+of your company they want.  VCs want a lot.  In a series A round
+they want a third of your company, if they can get it.  They don't
+care much how much they pay for it, but they want a lot because the
+number of series A investments they can do is so small.  In a
+traditional series A investment, at least one partner from the VC
+fund takes a seat on your board.  
+[4]
+ Since board seats last about
+5 years and each partner can't handle more than about 10 at once,
+that means a VC fund can only do about 2 series A deals per partner
+per year. And that means they need to get as much of the company
+as they can in each one.  You'd have to be a very promising startup
+indeed to get a VC to use up one of his 10 board seats for only a
+few percent of you.Since angels generally don't take board seats, they don't have this
+constraint.  They're happy to buy only a few percent of you.  And
+although the super-angels are in most respects mini VC funds, they've
+retained this critical property of angels.  They don't take board
+seats, so they don't need a big percentage of your company.Though that means you'll get correspondingly less attention from
+them, it's good news in other respects.  Founders never really liked
+giving up as much equity as VCs wanted.  It was a lot of the company
+to give up in one shot.  Most founders doing series A deals would
+prefer to take half as much money for half as much stock, and then
+see what valuation they could get for the second half of the stock
+after using the first half of the money to increase its value.  But
+VCs never offered that option.Now startups have another alternative.  Now it's easy to raise angel
+rounds about half the size of series A rounds.  Many of the startups
+we fund are taking this route, and I predict that will be true of
+startups in general.A typical big angel round might be $600k on a convertible note with
+a valuation cap of $4 million premoney.  Meaning that when the note
+converts into stock (in a later round, or upon acquisition), the
+investors in that round will get .6 / 4.6, or 13% of the company.
+That's a lot less than the 30 to 40% of the company you usually
+give up in a series A round if you do it so early.  
+[5]But the advantage of these medium-sized rounds is not just that
+they cause less dilution.  You also lose less control.  After an
+angel round, the founders almost always still have control of the
+company, whereas after a series A round they often don't.  The
+traditional board structure after a series A round is two founders,
+two VCs, and a (supposedly) neutral fifth person.  Plus series A
+terms usually give the investors a veto over various kinds of
+important decisions, including selling the company.  Founders usually
+have a lot of de facto control after a series A, as long as things
+are going well.  But that's not the same as just being able to do
+what you want, like you could before.A third and quite significant advantage of angel rounds is that
+they're less stressful to raise.  Raising a traditional series A
+round has in the past taken weeks, if not months.  When a VC firm
+can only do 2 deals per partner per year, they're careful about
+which they do.  To get a traditional series A round you have to go
+through a series of meetings, culminating in a full partner meeting
+where the firm as a whole says yes or no.  That's the really scary
+part for founders: not just that series A rounds take so long, but
+at the end of this long process the VCs might still say no.  The
+chance of getting rejected after the full partner meeting averages
+about 25%.  At some firms it's over 50%.Fortunately for founders, VCs have been getting a lot faster.
+Nowadays Valley VCs are more likely to take 2 weeks than 2 months.
+But they're still not as fast as angels and super-angels, the most
+decisive of whom sometimes decide in hours.Raising an angel round is not only quicker, but you get feedback
+as it progresses.  An angel round is not an all or nothing thing
+like a series A.  It's composed of multiple investors with varying
+degrees of seriousness, ranging from the upstanding ones who commit
+unequivocally to the jerks who give you lines like "come back to
+me to fill out the round." You usually start collecting money from
+the most committed investors and work your way out toward the
+ambivalent ones, whose interest increases as the round fills up.But at each point you know how you're doing.  If investors turn
+cold you may have to raise less, but when investors in an angel
+round turn cold the process at least degrades gracefully, instead
+of blowing up in your face and leaving you with nothing, as happens
+if you get rejected by a VC fund after a full partner meeting.
+Whereas if investors seem hot, you can not only close the round
+faster, but now that convertible notes are becoming the norm,
+actually raise the price to reflect demand.ValuationHowever, the VCs have a weapon they can use against the super-angels,
+and they have started to use it.   VCs have started making angel-sized
+investments too.  The term "angel round" doesn't mean that all the
+investors in it are angels; it just describes the structure of the
+round.  Increasingly the participants include VCs making investments
+of a hundred thousand or two.  And when VCs invest in angel rounds
+they can do things that super-angels don't like.  VCs are quite
+valuation-insensitive in angel rounds—partly because they are
+in general, and partly because they don't care that much about the
+returns on angel rounds, which they still view mostly as a way to
+recruit startups for series A rounds later.  So VCs who invest in
+angel rounds can blow up the valuations for angels and super-angels
+who invest in them. 
+[6]Some super-angels seem to care about valuations.  Several turned
+down YC-funded startups after Demo Day because their valuations
+were too high.  This was not a problem for the startups; by definition
+a high valuation means enough investors were willing to accept it.
+But it was mysterious to me that the super-angels would quibble
+about valuations.  Did they not understand that the big returns
+come from a few big successes, and that it therefore mattered far
+more which startups you picked than how much you paid for them?After thinking about it for a while and observing certain other
+signs, I have a theory that explains why the super-angels may be
+smarter than they seem.  It would make sense for super-angels to
+want low valuations if they're hoping to invest in startups that
+get bought early.  If you're hoping to hit the next Google, you
+shouldn't care if the valuation is 20 million.  But if you're looking
+for companies that are going to get bought for 30 million, you care.
+If you invest at 20 and the company gets bought for 30, you only
+get 1.5x.  You might as well buy Apple.So if some of the super-angels were looking for companies that could
+get acquired quickly, that would explain why they'd care about
+valuations.  But why would they be looking for those?   Because
+depending on the meaning of "quickly," it could actually be very
+profitable.  A company that gets acquired for 30 million is a failure
+to a VC, but it could be a 10x return for an angel, and moreover,
+a quick 10x return.  Rate of return is what matters in
+investing—not the multiple you get, but the multiple per year.
+If a super-angel gets 10x in one year, that's a higher rate of
+return than a VC could ever hope to get from a company that took 6
+years to go public.  To get the same rate of return, the VC would
+have to get a multiple of 10^6—one million x.  Even Google
+didn't come close to that.So I think at least some super-angels are looking for companies
+that will get bought.  That's the only rational explanation for
+focusing on getting the right valuations, instead of the right
+companies.  And if so they'll be different to deal with than VCs.
+They'll be tougher on valuations, but more accommodating if you want
+to sell early.PrognosisWho will win, the super-angels or the VCs?  I think the answer to
+that is, some of each.  They'll each become more like one another.
+The super-angels will start to invest larger amounts, and the VCs
+will gradually figure out ways to make more, smaller investments
+faster.  A decade from now the players will be hard to tell apart,
+and there will probably be survivors from each group.What does that mean for founders?  One thing it means is that the
+high valuations startups are presently getting may not last forever.
+To the extent that valuations are being driven up by price-insensitive
+VCs, they'll fall again if VCs become more like super-angels and
+start to become more miserly about valuations.  Fortunately if this
+does happen it will take years.The short term forecast is more competition between investors, which
+is good news for you.  The super-angels will try to undermine the
+VCs by acting faster, and the VCs will try to undermine the
+super-angels by driving up valuations.  Which for founders will
+result in the perfect combination: funding rounds that close fast,
+with high valuations.But remember that to get that combination, your startup will have
+to appeal to both super-angels and VCs.  If you don't seem like you
+have the potential to go public, you won't be able to use VCs to
+drive up the valuation of an angel round.There is a danger of having VCs in an angel round: the so-called
+signalling risk.  If VCs are only doing it in the hope of investing
+more later, what happens if they don't?  That's a signal to everyone
+else that they think you're lame.How much should you worry about that?  The seriousness of signalling
+risk depends on how far along you are.  If by the next time you
+need to raise money, you have graphs showing rising revenue or
+traffic month after month, you don't have to worry about any signals
+your existing investors are sending.  Your results will speak for
+themselves.  
+[7]Whereas if the next time you need to raise money you won't yet have
+concrete results, you may need to think more about the message your
+investors might send if they don't invest more.  I'm not sure yet
+how much you have to worry, because this whole phenomenon of VCs
+doing angel investments is so new. But my instincts tell me you
+don't have to worry much.  Signalling risk smells like one of those
+things founders worry about that's not a real problem.  As a rule,
+the only thing that can kill a good startup is the startup itself.
+Startups hurt themselves way more often than competitors hurt them,
+for example.  I suspect signalling risk is in this category too.One thing YC-funded startups have been doing to mitigate the risk
+of taking money from VCs in angel rounds is not to take too much
+from any one VC.  Maybe that will help, if you have the luxury of
+turning down money.Fortunately, more and more startups will.  After decades of competition
+that could best be described as intramural, the startup funding
+business is finally getting some real competition.  That should
+last several years at least, and maybe a lot longer. Unless there's
+some huge market crash, the next couple years are going to be a
+good time for startups to raise money.  And that's exciting because
+it means lots more startups will happen.
+Notes[1]
+I've also heard them called "Mini-VCs" and "Micro-VCs." I
+don't know which name will stick.There were a couple predecessors.  Ron Conway had angel funds
+starting in the 1990s, and in some ways First Round Capital is closer to a
+super-angel than a VC fund.[2]
+It wouldn't cut their overall returns tenfold, because investing
+later would probably (a) cause them to lose less on investments
+that failed, and (b) not allow them to get as large a percentage
+of startups as they do now.  So it's hard to predict precisely what
+would happen to their returns.[3]
+The brand of an investor derives mostly from the success of
+their portfolio companies.  The top VCs thus have a big brand
+advantage over the super-angels.  They could make it self-perpetuating
+if they used it to get all the best new startups.  But I don't think
+they'll be able to.  To get all the best startups, you have to do
+more than make them want you.  You also have to want them; you have
+to recognize them when you see them, and that's much harder.
+Super-angels will snap up stars that VCs miss.  And that will cause
+the brand gap between the top VCs and the super-angels gradually
+to erode.[4]
+Though in a traditional series A round VCs put two partners
+on your board, there are signs now that VCs may begin to conserve
+board seats by switching to what used to be considered an angel-round
+board, consisting of two founders and one VC.  Which is also to the
+founders' advantage if it means they still control the company.[5]
+In a series A round, you usually have to give up more than
+the actual amount of stock the VCs buy, because they insist you
+dilute yourselves to set aside an "option pool" as well.  I predict
+this practice will gradually disappear though.[6]
+The best thing for founders, if they can get it, is a convertible
+note with no valuation cap at all.  In that case the money invested
+in the angel round just converts into stock at the valuation of the
+next round, no matter how large.  Angels and super-angels tend not
+to like uncapped notes. They have no idea how much of the company
+they're buying.  If the company does well and the valuation of the
+next round is high, they may end up with only a sliver of it.  So
+by agreeing to uncapped notes, VCs who don't care about valuations
+in angel rounds can make offers that super-angels hate to match.[7]
+Obviously signalling risk is also not a problem if you'll
+never need to raise more money.  But startups are often mistaken
+about that.Thanks to Sam Altman, John Bautista, Patrick Collison, James
+Lindenbaum, Reid Hoffman, Jessica Livingston and Harj Taggar
+for reading drafts
+of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/todo.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+April 2012A palliative care nurse called Bronnie Ware made a list of the
+biggest regrets
+of the dying.  Her list seems plausible.  I could see
+myself — can see myself — making at least 4 of these
+5 mistakes.If you had to compress them into a single piece of advice, it might
+be: don't be a cog.  The 5 regrets paint a portrait of post-industrial
+man, who shrinks himself into a shape that fits his circumstances,
+then turns dutifully till he stops.The alarming thing is, the mistakes that produce these regrets are
+all errors of omission.  You forget your dreams, ignore your family,
+suppress your feelings, neglect your friends, and forget to be
+happy.  Errors of omission are a particularly dangerous type of
+mistake, because you make them by default.I would like to avoid making these mistakes.  But how do you avoid
+mistakes you make by default?  Ideally you transform your life so
+it has other defaults.  But it may not be possible to do that
+completely. As long as these mistakes happen by default, you probably
+have to be reminded not to make them.  So I inverted the 5 regrets,
+yielding a list of 5 commands
+
+   Don't ignore your dreams; don't work too much; say what you
+   think; cultivate friendships; be happy.
+
+which I then put at the top of the file I use as a todo list.

PaulGrahamEssays/unions.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+May 2007People who worry about the increasing gap between rich and poor
+generally look back on the mid twentieth century as a golden age.
+In those days we had a large number of high-paying union manufacturing
+jobs that boosted the median income.  I wouldn't quite call the
+high-paying union job a myth, but I think people who dwell on it
+are reading too much into it.Oddly enough, it was working with startups that made me realize
+where the high-paying union job came from.  In a rapidly growing
+market, you don't worry too much about efficiency.  It's more
+important to grow fast.  If there's some mundane problem getting
+in your way, and there's a simple solution that's somewhat expensive,
+just take it and get on with more important things.  EBay didn't
+win by paying less for servers than their competitors.Difficult though it may be to imagine now, manufacturing was a
+growth industry in the mid twentieth century.  This was an era when
+small firms making everything from cars to candy were getting
+consolidated into a new kind of corporation with national reach and
+huge economies of scale.  You had to grow fast or die.  Workers
+were for these companies what servers are for an Internet startup.
+A reliable supply was more important than low cost.If you looked in the head of a 1950s auto executive, the attitude
+must have been: sure, give 'em whatever they ask for, so long as
+the new model isn't delayed.In other words, those workers were not paid what their work was
+worth.  Circumstances being what they were, companies would have
+been stupid to insist on paying them so little.If you want a less controversial example of this phenomenon, ask
+anyone who worked as a consultant building web sites during the
+Internet Bubble.  In the late nineties you could get paid huge sums
+of money for building the most trivial things.  And yet does anyone
+who was there have any expectation those days will ever return?  I
+doubt it.  Surely everyone realizes that was just a temporary
+aberration.The era of labor unions seems to have been the same kind of aberration, 
+just spread
+over a longer period, and mixed together with a lot of ideology
+that prevents people from viewing it with as cold an eye as they
+would something like consulting during the Bubble.Basically, unions were just Razorfish.People who think the labor movement was the creation of heroic union
+organizers have a problem to explain: why are unions shrinking now?
+The best they can do is fall back on the default explanation of
+people living in fallen civilizations.  Our ancestors were giants.
+The workers of the early twentieth century must have had a moral
+courage that's lacking today.In fact there's a simpler explanation.  The early twentieth century
+was just a fast-growing startup overpaying for infrastructure.  And
+we in the present are not a fallen people, who have abandoned
+whatever mysterious high-minded principles produced the high-paying
+union job.  We simply live in a time when the fast-growing companies
+overspend on different things.

PaulGrahamEssays/useful.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
+February 2020What should an essay be? Many people would say persuasive. That's
+what a lot of us were taught essays should be. But I think we can
+aim for something more ambitious: that an essay should be useful.To start with, that means it should be correct. But it's not enough
+merely to be correct. It's easy to make a statement correct by
+making it vague. That's a common flaw in academic writing, for
+example. If you know nothing at all about an issue, you can't go
+wrong by saying that the issue is a complex one, that there are
+many factors to be considered, that it's a mistake to take too
+simplistic a view of it, and so on.Though no doubt correct, such statements tell the reader nothing.
+Useful writing makes claims that are as strong as they can be made
+without becoming false.For example, it's more useful to say that Pike's Peak is near the
+middle of Colorado than merely somewhere in Colorado. But if I say
+it's in the exact middle of Colorado, I've now gone too far, because
+it's a bit east of the middle.Precision and correctness are like opposing forces. It's easy to
+satisfy one if you ignore the other. The converse of vaporous
+academic writing is the bold, but false, rhetoric of demagogues.
+Useful writing is bold, but true.It's also two other things: it tells people something important,
+and that at least some of them didn't already know.Telling people something they didn't know doesn't always mean
+surprising them. Sometimes it means telling them something they
+knew unconsciously but had never put into words. In fact those may
+be the more valuable insights, because they tend to be more
+fundamental.Let's put them all together. Useful writing tells people something
+true and important that they didn't already know, and tells them
+as unequivocally as possible.Notice these are all a matter of degree. For example, you can't
+expect an idea to be novel to everyone. Any insight that you have
+will probably have already been had by at least one of the world's
+7 billion people. But it's sufficient if an idea is novel to a lot
+of readers.Ditto for correctness, importance, and strength. In effect the four
+components are like numbers you can multiply together to get a score
+for usefulness. Which I realize is almost awkwardly reductive, but
+nonetheless true._____
+How can you ensure that the things you say are true and novel and
+important? Believe it or not, there is a trick for doing this. I
+learned it from my friend Robert Morris, who has a horror of saying
+anything dumb. His trick is not to say anything unless he's sure
+it's worth hearing. This makes it hard to get opinions out of him,
+but when you do, they're usually right.Translated into essay writing, what this means is that if you write
+a bad sentence, you don't publish it. You delete it and try again.
+Often you abandon whole branches of four or five paragraphs. Sometimes
+a whole essay.You can't ensure that every idea you have is good, but you can
+ensure that every one you publish is, by simply not publishing the
+ones that aren't.In the sciences, this is called publication bias, and is considered
+bad. When some hypothesis you're exploring gets inconclusive results,
+you're supposed to tell people about that too. But with essay
+writing, publication bias is the way to go.My strategy is loose, then tight. I write the first draft of an
+essay fast, trying out all kinds of ideas. Then I spend days rewriting
+it very carefully.I've never tried to count how many times I proofread essays, but
+I'm sure there are sentences I've read 100 times before publishing
+them. When I proofread an essay, there are usually passages that
+stick out in an annoying way, sometimes because they're clumsily
+written, and sometimes because I'm not sure they're true. The
+annoyance starts out unconscious, but after the tenth reading or
+so I'm saying "Ugh, that part" each time I hit it. They become like
+briars that catch your sleeve as you walk past. Usually I won't
+publish an essay till they're all gone — till I can read through
+the whole thing without the feeling of anything catching.I'll sometimes let through a sentence that seems clumsy, if I can't
+think of a way to rephrase it, but I will never knowingly let through
+one that doesn't seem correct. You never have to. If a sentence
+doesn't seem right, all you have to do is ask why it doesn't, and
+you've usually got the replacement right there in your head.This is where essayists have an advantage over journalists. You
+don't have a deadline. You can work for as long on an essay as you
+need to get it right. You don't have to publish the essay at all,
+if you can't get it right. Mistakes seem to lose courage in the
+face of an enemy with unlimited resources. Or that's what it feels
+like. What's really going on is that you have different expectations
+for yourself. You're like a parent saying to a child "we can sit
+here all night till you eat your vegetables." Except you're the
+child too.I'm not saying no mistake gets through. For example, I added condition
+(c) in "A Way to Detect Bias" 
+after readers pointed out that I'd
+omitted it. But in practice you can catch nearly all of them.There's a trick for getting importance too. It's like the trick I
+suggest to young founders for getting startup ideas: to make something
+you yourself want. You can use yourself as a proxy for the reader.
+The reader is not completely unlike you, so if you write about
+topics that seem important to you, they'll probably seem important
+to a significant number of readers as well.Importance has two factors. It's the number of people something
+matters to, times how much it matters to them. Which means of course
+that it's not a rectangle, but a sort of ragged comb, like a Riemann
+sum.The way to get novelty is to write about topics you've thought about
+a lot. Then you can use yourself as a proxy for the reader in this
+department too. Anything you notice that surprises you, who've
+thought about the topic a lot, will probably also surprise a
+significant number of readers. And here, as with correctness and
+importance, you can use the Morris technique to ensure that you
+will. If you don't learn anything from writing an essay, don't
+publish it.You need humility to measure novelty, because acknowledging the
+novelty of an idea means acknowledging your previous ignorance of
+it. Confidence and humility are often seen as opposites, but in
+this case, as in many others, confidence helps you to be humble.
+If you know you're an expert on some topic, you can freely admit
+when you learn something you didn't know, because you can be confident
+that most other people wouldn't know it either.The fourth component of useful writing, strength, comes from two
+things: thinking well, and the skillful use of qualification. These
+two counterbalance each other, like the accelerator and clutch in
+a car with a manual transmission. As you try to refine the expression
+of an idea, you adjust the qualification accordingly. Something
+you're sure of, you can state baldly with no qualification at all,
+as I did the four components of useful writing. Whereas points that
+seem dubious have to be held at arm's length with perhapses.As you refine an idea, you're pushing in the direction of less
+qualification. But you can rarely get it down to zero. Sometimes
+you don't even want to, if it's a side point and a fully refined
+version would be too long.Some say that qualifications weaken writing. For example, that you
+should never begin a sentence in an essay with "I think," because
+if you're saying it, then of course you think it. And it's true
+that "I think x" is a weaker statement than simply "x." Which is
+exactly why you need "I think." You need it to express your degree
+of certainty.But qualifications are not scalars. They're not just experimental
+error. There must be 50 things they can express: how broadly something
+applies, how you know it, how happy you are it's so, even how it
+could be falsified. I'm not going to try to explore the structure
+of qualification here. It's probably more complex than the whole
+topic of writing usefully. Instead I'll just give you a practical
+tip: Don't underestimate qualification. It's an important skill in
+its own right, not just a sort of tax you have to pay in order to
+avoid saying things that are false. So learn and use its full range.
+It may not be fully half of having good ideas, but it's part of
+having them.There's one other quality I aim for in essays: to say things as
+simply as possible. But I don't think this is a component of
+usefulness. It's more a matter of consideration for the reader. And
+it's a practical aid in getting things right; a mistake is more
+obvious when expressed in simple language. But I'll admit that the
+main reason I write simply is not for the reader's sake or because
+it helps get things right, but because it bothers me to use more
+or fancier words than I need to. It seems inelegant, like a program
+that's too long.I realize florid writing works for some people. But unless you're
+sure you're one of them, the best advice is to write as simply as
+you can._____
+I believe the formula I've given you, importance + novelty +
+correctness + strength, is the recipe for a good essay. But I should
+warn you that it's also a recipe for making people mad.The root of the problem is novelty. When you tell people something
+they didn't know, they don't always thank you for it. Sometimes the
+reason people don't know something is because they don't want to
+know it. Usually because it contradicts some cherished belief. And
+indeed, if you're looking for novel ideas, popular but mistaken
+beliefs are a good place to find them. Every popular mistaken belief
+creates a dead zone of ideas around 
+it that are relatively unexplored because they contradict it.The strength component just makes things worse. If there's anything
+that annoys people more than having their cherished assumptions
+contradicted, it's having them flatly contradicted.Plus if you've used the Morris technique, your writing will seem
+quite confident. Perhaps offensively confident, to people who
+disagree with you. The reason you'll seem confident is that you are
+confident: you've cheated, by only publishing the things you're
+sure of.  It will seem to people who try to disagree with you that
+you never admit you're wrong. In fact you constantly admit you're
+wrong. You just do it before publishing instead of after.And if your writing is as simple as possible, that just makes things
+worse. Brevity is the diction of command. If you watch someone
+delivering unwelcome news from a position of inferiority, you'll
+notice they tend to use lots of words, to soften the blow. Whereas
+to be short with someone is more or less to be rude to them.It can sometimes work to deliberately phrase statements more weakly
+than you mean. To put "perhaps" in front of something you're actually
+quite sure of. But you'll notice that when writers do this, they
+usually do it with a wink.I don't like to do this too much. It's cheesy to adopt an ironic
+tone for a whole essay. I think we just have to face the fact that
+elegance and curtness are two names for the same thing.You might think that if you work sufficiently hard to ensure that
+an essay is correct, it will be invulnerable to attack. That's sort
+of true. It will be invulnerable to valid attacks. But in practice
+that's little consolation.In fact, the strength component of useful writing will make you
+particularly vulnerable to misrepresentation. If you've stated an
+idea as strongly as you could without making it false, all anyone
+has to do is to exaggerate slightly what you said, and now it is
+false.Much of the time they're not even doing it deliberately. One of the
+most surprising things you'll discover, if you start writing essays,
+is that people who disagree with you rarely disagree with what
+you've actually written. Instead they make up something you said
+and disagree with that.For what it's worth, the countermove is to ask someone who does
+this to quote a specific sentence or passage you wrote that they
+believe is false, and explain why. I say "for what it's worth"
+because they never do. So although it might seem that this could
+get a broken discussion back on track, the truth is that it was
+never on track in the first place.Should you explicitly forestall likely misinterpretations? Yes, if
+they're misinterpretations a reasonably smart and well-intentioned
+person might make. In fact it's sometimes better to say something
+slightly misleading and then add the correction than to try to get
+an idea right in one shot. That can be more efficient, and can also
+model the way such an idea would be discovered.But I don't think you should explicitly forestall intentional
+misinterpretations in the body of an essay. An essay is a place to
+meet honest readers. You don't want to spoil your house by putting
+bars on the windows to protect against dishonest ones. The place
+to protect against intentional misinterpretations is in end-notes.
+But don't think you can predict them all. People are as ingenious
+at misrepresenting you when you say something they don't want to
+hear as they are at coming up with rationalizations for things they
+want to do but know they shouldn't. I suspect it's the same skill._____
+As with most other things, the way to get better at writing essays
+is to practice. But how do you start? Now that we've examined the
+structure of useful writing, we can rephrase that question more
+precisely. Which constraint do you relax initially? The answer is,
+the first component of importance: the number of people who care
+about what you write.If you narrow the topic sufficiently, you can probably find something
+you're an expert on. Write about that to start with. If you only
+have ten readers who care, that's fine. You're helping them, and
+you're writing. Later you can expand the breadth of topics you write
+about.The other constraint you can relax is a little surprising: publication.
+Writing essays doesn't have to mean publishing them. That may seem
+strange now that the trend is to publish every random thought, but
+it worked for me. I wrote what amounted to essays in notebooks for
+about 15 years. I never published any of them and never expected
+to. I wrote them as a way of figuring things out. But when the web
+came along I'd had a lot of practice.Incidentally, 
+Steve 
+Wozniak did the same thing. In high school he
+designed computers on paper for fun. He couldn't build them because
+he couldn't afford the components. But when Intel launched 4K DRAMs
+in 1975, he was ready._____
+How many essays are there left to write though? The answer to that
+question is probably the most exciting thing I've learned about
+essay writing. Nearly all of them are left to write.Although the essay 
+is an old form, it hasn't been assiduously
+cultivated. In the print era, publication was expensive, and there
+wasn't enough demand for essays to publish that many. You could
+publish essays if you were already well known for writing something
+else, like novels. Or you could write book reviews that you took
+over to express your own ideas. But there was not really a direct
+path to becoming an essayist. Which meant few essays got written,
+and those that did tended to be about a narrow range of subjects.Now, thanks to the internet, there's a path. Anyone can publish
+essays online. You start in obscurity, perhaps, but at least you
+can start. You don't need anyone's permission.It sometimes happens that an area of knowledge sits quietly for
+years, till some change makes it explode. Cryptography did this to
+number theory. The internet is doing it to the essay.The exciting thing is not that there's a lot left to write, but
+that there's a lot left to discover. There's a certain kind of idea
+that's best discovered by writing essays. If most essays are still
+unwritten, most such ideas are still undiscovered.Notes[1] Put railings on the balconies, but don't put bars on the windows.[2] Even now I sometimes write essays that are not meant for
+publication. I wrote several to figure out what Y Combinator should
+do, and they were really helpful.Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Daniel Gackle, Jessica Livingston, and
+Robert Morris for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/vb.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+January 2016Life is short, as everyone knows. When I was a kid I used to wonder
+about this. Is life actually short, or are we really complaining
+about its finiteness?  Would we be just as likely to feel life was
+short if we lived 10 times as long?Since there didn't seem any way to answer this question, I stopped
+wondering about it.  Then I had kids.  That gave me a way to answer
+the question, and the answer is that life actually is short.Having kids showed me how to convert a continuous quantity, time,
+into discrete quantities. You only get 52 weekends with your 2 year
+old.  If Christmas-as-magic lasts from say ages 3 to 10, you only
+get to watch your child experience it 8 times.  And while it's
+impossible to say what is a lot or a little of a continuous quantity
+like time, 8 is not a lot of something.  If you had a handful of 8
+peanuts, or a shelf of 8 books to choose from, the quantity would
+definitely seem limited, no matter what your lifespan was.Ok, so life actually is short.  Does it make any difference to know
+that?It has for me.  It means arguments of the form "Life is too short
+for x" have great force.  It's not just a figure of speech to say
+that life is too short for something.  It's not just a synonym for
+annoying.  If you find yourself thinking that life is too short for
+something, you should try to eliminate it if you can.When I ask myself what I've found life is too short for, the word
+that pops into my head is "bullshit." I realize that answer is
+somewhat tautological.  It's almost the definition of bullshit that
+it's the stuff that life is too short for.  And yet bullshit does
+have a distinctive character.  There's something fake about it.
+It's the junk food of experience.
+[1]If you ask yourself what you spend your time on that's bullshit,
+you probably already know the answer.  Unnecessary meetings, pointless
+disputes, bureaucracy, posturing, dealing with other people's
+mistakes, traffic jams, addictive but unrewarding pastimes.There are two ways this kind of thing gets into your life: it's
+either forced on you, or it tricks you.  To some extent you have to
+put up with the bullshit forced on you by circumstances.  You need
+to make money, and making money consists mostly of errands.  Indeed,
+the law of supply and demand insures that: the more rewarding some
+kind of work is, the cheaper people will do it.  It may be that
+less bullshit is forced on you than you think, though.  There has
+always been a stream of people who opt out of the default grind and
+go live somewhere where opportunities are fewer in the conventional
+sense, but life feels more authentic.  This could become more common.You can do it on a smaller scale without moving.  The amount of
+time you have to spend on bullshit varies between employers.  Most
+large organizations (and many small ones) are steeped in it.  But
+if you consciously prioritize bullshit avoidance over other factors
+like money and prestige, you can probably find employers that will
+waste less of your time.If you're a freelancer or a small company, you can do this at the
+level of individual customers.  If you fire or avoid toxic customers,
+you can decrease the amount of bullshit in your life by more than
+you decrease your income.But while some amount of bullshit is inevitably forced on you, the
+bullshit that sneaks into your life by tricking you is no one's
+fault but your own.  And yet the bullshit you choose may be harder
+to eliminate than the bullshit that's forced on you.  Things that
+lure you into wasting your time have to be really good at
+tricking you.  An example that will be familiar to a lot of people
+is arguing online.  When someone
+contradicts you, they're in a sense attacking you. Sometimes pretty
+overtly.  Your instinct when attacked is to defend yourself.  But
+like a lot of instincts, this one wasn't designed for the world we
+now live in.  Counterintuitive as it feels, it's better most of
+the time not to defend yourself.  Otherwise these people are literally
+taking your life.
+[2]Arguing online is only incidentally addictive. There are more
+dangerous things than that. As I've written before, one byproduct
+of technical progress is that things we like tend to become more
+addictive.  Which means we will increasingly have to make a conscious
+effort to avoid addictions — to stand outside ourselves and ask "is
+this how I want to be spending my time?"As well as avoiding bullshit, one should actively seek out things
+that matter.  But different things matter to different people, and
+most have to learn what matters to them.  A few are lucky and realize
+early on that they love math or taking care of animals or writing,
+and then figure out a way to spend a lot of time doing it.  But
+most people start out with a life that's a mix of things that
+matter and things that don't, and only gradually learn to distinguish
+between them.For the young especially, much of this confusion is induced by the
+artificial situations they find themselves in. In middle school and
+high school, what the other kids think of you seems the most important
+thing in the world.  But when you ask adults what they got wrong
+at that age, nearly all say they cared too much what other kids
+thought of them.One heuristic for distinguishing stuff that matters is to ask
+yourself whether you'll care about it in the future.  Fake stuff
+that matters usually has a sharp peak of seeming to matter.  That's
+how it tricks you.  The area under the curve is small, but its shape
+jabs into your consciousness like a pin.The things that matter aren't necessarily the ones people would
+call "important."  Having coffee with a friend matters.  You won't
+feel later like that was a waste of time.One great thing about having small children is that they make you
+spend time on things that matter: them. They grab your sleeve as
+you're staring at your phone and say "will you play with me?" And
+odds are that is in fact the bullshit-minimizing option.If life is short, we should expect its shortness to take us by
+surprise. And that is just what tends to happen.  You take things
+for granted, and then they're gone.  You think you can always write
+that book, or climb that mountain, or whatever, and then you realize
+the window has closed.  The saddest windows close when other people
+die. Their lives are short too.  After my mother died, I wished I'd
+spent more time with her.  I lived as if she'd always be there.
+And in her typical quiet way she encouraged that illusion.  But an
+illusion it was. I think a lot of people make the same mistake I
+did.The usual way to avoid being taken by surprise by something is to
+be consciously aware of it.  Back when life was more precarious,
+people used to be aware of death to a degree that would now seem a
+bit morbid.  I'm not sure why, but it doesn't seem the right answer
+to be constantly reminding oneself of the grim reaper hovering at
+everyone's shoulder.  Perhaps a better solution is to look at the
+problem from the other end. Cultivate a habit of impatience about
+the things you most want to do. Don't wait before climbing that
+mountain or writing that book or visiting your mother.  You don't
+need to be constantly reminding yourself why you shouldn't wait.
+Just don't wait.I can think of two more things one does when one doesn't have much
+of something: try to get more of it, and savor what one has.  Both
+make sense here.How you live affects how long you live.  Most people could do better.
+Me among them.But you can probably get even more effect by paying closer attention
+to the time you have.  It's easy to let the days rush by.  The
+"flow" that imaginative people love so much has a darker cousin
+that prevents you from pausing to savor life amid the daily slurry
+of errands and alarms.  One of the most striking things I've read
+was not in a book, but the title of one: James Salter's Burning
+the Days.It is possible to slow time somewhat. I've gotten better at it.
+Kids help.  When you have small children, there are a lot of moments
+so perfect that you can't help noticing.It does help too to feel that you've squeezed everything out of
+some experience.  The reason I'm sad about my mother is not just
+that I miss her but that I think of all the things we could have
+done that we didn't.  My oldest son will be 7 soon.  And while I
+miss the 3 year old version of him, I at least don't have any regrets
+over what might have been.  We had the best time a daddy and a 3
+year old ever had.Relentlessly prune bullshit, don't wait to do things that matter,
+and savor the time you have.  That's what you do when life is short.Notes[1]
+At first I didn't like it that the word that came to mind was
+one that had other meanings.  But then I realized the other meanings
+are fairly closely related.  Bullshit in the sense of things you
+waste your time on is a lot like intellectual bullshit.[2]
+I chose this example deliberately as a note to self.  I get
+attacked a lot online.  People tell the craziest lies about me.
+And I have so far done a pretty mediocre job of suppressing the
+natural human inclination to say "Hey, that's not true!"Thanks to Jessica Livingston and Geoff Ralston for reading drafts
+of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/vcsqueeze.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+November 2005In the next few years, venture capital funds will find themselves
+squeezed from four directions.  They're already stuck with a seller's
+market, because of the huge amounts they raised at the end of the
+Bubble and still haven't invested.  This by itself is not the end
+of the world.  In fact, it's just a more extreme version of the
+norm
+in the VC business: too much money chasing too few deals.Unfortunately, those few deals now want less and less money, because
+it's getting so cheap to start a startup.  The four causes: open
+source, which makes software free; Moore's law, which makes hardware
+geometrically closer to free; the Web, which makes promotion free
+if you're good; and better languages, which make development a lot
+cheaper.When we started our startup in 1995, the first three were our biggest
+expenses.  We had to pay $5000 for the Netscape Commerce Server,
+the only software that then supported secure http connections.  We
+paid $3000 for a server with a 90 MHz processor and 32 meg of
+memory.  And we paid a PR firm about $30,000 to promote our launch.Now you could get all three for nothing.  You can get the software
+for free; people throw away computers more powerful than our first
+server; and if you make something good you can generate ten times
+as much traffic by word of mouth online than our first PR firm got
+through the print media.And of course another big change for the average startup is that
+programming languages have improved-- or rather, the median language has.  At most startups ten years
+ago, software development meant ten programmers writing code in
+C++.  Now the same work might be done by one or two using Python
+or Ruby.During the Bubble, a lot of people predicted that startups would
+outsource their development to India.  I think a better model for
+the future is David Heinemeier Hansson, who outsourced his development
+to a more powerful language instead.  A lot of well-known applications
+are now, like BaseCamp, written by just one programmer.  And one
+guy is more than 10x cheaper than ten, because (a) he won't waste
+any time in meetings, and (b) since he's probably a founder, he can
+pay himself nothing.Because starting a startup is so cheap, venture capitalists now
+often want to give startups more money than the startups want to
+take.  VCs like to invest several million at a time.  But as one
+VC told me after a startup he funded would only take about half a
+million, "I don't know what we're going to do.  Maybe we'll just
+have to give some of it back." Meaning give some of the fund back
+to the institutional investors who supplied it, because it wasn't
+going to be possible to invest it all.Into this already bad situation comes the third problem: Sarbanes-Oxley.
+Sarbanes-Oxley is a law, passed after the Bubble, that drastically
+increases the regulatory burden on public companies. And in addition
+to the cost of compliance, which is at least two million dollars a
+year, the law introduces frightening legal exposure for corporate
+officers.  An experienced CFO I know said flatly: "I would not
+want to be CFO of a public company now."You might think that responsible corporate governance is an area
+where you can't go too far.  But you can go too far in any law, and
+this remark convinced me that Sarbanes-Oxley must have.  This CFO
+is both the smartest and the most upstanding money guy I know.  If
+Sarbanes-Oxley deters people like him from being CFOs of public  
+companies, that's proof enough that it's broken.Largely because of Sarbanes-Oxley, few startups go public now.  For
+all practical purposes, succeeding now equals getting bought.  Which
+means VCs are now in the business of finding promising little 2-3
+man startups and pumping them up into companies that cost $100
+million to acquire.   They didn't mean to be in this business; it's
+just what their business has evolved into.Hence the fourth problem: the acquirers have begun to realize they
+can buy wholesale.  Why should they wait for VCs to make the startups
+they want more expensive?  Most of what the VCs add, acquirers don't
+want anyway.  The acquirers already have brand recognition and HR
+departments.  What they really want is the software and the developers,
+and that's what the startup is in the early phase: concentrated
+software and developers.Google, typically, seems to have been the first to figure this out.
+"Bring us your startups early," said Google's speaker at the Startup School.  They're quite
+explicit about it: they like to acquire startups at just the point
+where they would do a Series A round.  (The Series A round is the
+first round of real VC funding; it usually happens in the first
+year.) It is a brilliant strategy, and one that other big technology
+companies will no doubt try to duplicate.  Unless they want to have 
+still more of their lunch eaten by Google.Of course, Google has an advantage in buying startups: a lot of the
+people there are rich, or expect to be when their options vest.
+Ordinary employees find it very hard to recommend an acquisition;
+it's just too annoying to see a bunch of twenty year olds get rich
+when you're still working for salary.  Even if it's the right thing   
+for your company to do.The Solution(s)Bad as things look now, there is a way for VCs to save themselves.
+They need to do two things, one of which won't surprise them, and  
+another that will seem an anathema.Let's start with the obvious one: lobby to get Sarbanes-Oxley  
+loosened.  This law was created to prevent future Enrons, not to
+destroy the IPO market.  Since the IPO market was practically dead
+when it passed, few saw what bad effects it would have.  But now 
+that technology has recovered from the last bust, we can see clearly
+what a bottleneck Sarbanes-Oxley has become.Startups are fragile plants—seedlings, in fact.  These seedlings
+are worth protecting, because they grow into the trees of the
+economy.  Much of the economy's growth is their growth.  I think
+most politicians realize that.  But they don't realize just how   
+fragile startups are, and how easily they can become collateral
+damage of laws meant to fix some other problem.Still more dangerously, when you destroy startups, they make very
+little noise.  If you step on the toes of the coal industry, you'll
+hear about it.  But if you inadvertantly squash the startup industry,
+all that happens is that the founders of the next Google stay in 
+grad school instead of starting a company.My second suggestion will seem shocking to VCs: let founders cash  
+out partially in the Series A round.  At the moment, when VCs invest
+in a startup, all the stock they get is newly issued and all the 
+money goes to the company.  They could buy some stock directly from
+the founders as well.Most VCs have an almost religious rule against doing this.  They
+don't want founders to get a penny till the company is sold or goes
+public.  VCs are obsessed with control, and they worry that they'll
+have less leverage over the founders if the founders have any money.This is a dumb plan.  In fact, letting the founders sell a little stock
+early would generally be better for the company, because it would
+cause the founders' attitudes toward risk to be aligned with the
+VCs'.  As things currently work, their attitudes toward risk tend
+to be diametrically opposed: the founders, who have nothing, would
+prefer a 100% chance of $1 million to a 20% chance of $10 million,
+while the VCs can afford to be "rational" and prefer the latter.Whatever they say, the reason founders are selling their companies
+early instead of doing Series A rounds is that they get paid up
+front.  That first million is just worth so much more than the
+subsequent ones.  If founders could sell a little stock early,
+they'd be happy to take VC money and bet the rest on a bigger
+outcome.So why not let the founders have that first million, or at least
+half million?  The VCs would get same number of shares for the   
+money.  So what if some of the money would go to the  
+founders instead of the company?Some VCs will say this is
+unthinkable—that they want all their money to be put to work
+growing the company.  But the fact is, the huge size of current VC
+investments is dictated by the structure
+of VC funds, not the needs of startups.  Often as not these large  
+investments go to work destroying the company rather than growing
+it.The angel investors who funded our startup let the founders sell
+some stock directly to them, and it was a good deal for everyone. 
+The angels made a huge return on that investment, so they're happy.
+And for us founders it blunted the terrifying all-or-nothingness
+of a startup, which in its raw form is more a distraction than a
+motivator.If VCs are frightened at the idea of letting founders partially
+cash out, let me tell them something still more frightening: you
+are now competing directly with Google.
+Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Sarah Harlin, Jessica
+Livingston, and Robert Morris for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/vw.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+January 2012A few hours before the Yahoo acquisition was announced in June 1998
+I took a snapshot of Viaweb's
+site.  I thought it might be interesting to look at one day.The first thing one notices is is how tiny the pages are.  Screens
+were a lot smaller in 1998.  If I remember correctly, our frontpage
+used to just fit in the size window people typically used then.Browsers then (IE 6 was still 3 years in the future) had few fonts
+and they weren't antialiased.  If you wanted to make pages that
+looked good, you had to render display text as images.You may notice a certain similarity between the Viaweb and Y Combinator logos.  We did that
+as an inside joke when we started YC.  Considering how basic a red
+circle is, it seemed surprising to me when we started Viaweb how
+few other companies used one as their logo.  A bit later I realized
+why.On the Company
+page you'll notice a mysterious individual called John McArtyem.
+Robert Morris (aka Rtm) was so publicity averse after the 
+Worm that he
+didn't want his name on the site.  I managed to get him to agree
+to a compromise: we could use his bio but not his name.  He has
+since relaxed a bit
+on that point.Trevor graduated at about the same time the acquisition closed, so in the
+course of 4 days he went from impecunious grad student to millionaire
+PhD.  The culmination of my career as a writer of press releases
+was one celebrating
+his graduation, illustrated with a drawing I did of him during
+a meeting.(Trevor also appears as Trevino
+Bagwell in our directory of web designers merchants could hire
+to build stores for them.  We inserted him as a ringer in case some
+competitor tried to spam our web designers.   We assumed his logo
+would deter any actual customers, but it did not.)Back in the 90s, to get users you had to get mentioned in magazines
+and newspapers.  There were not the same ways to get found online
+that there are today.  So we used to pay a PR
+firm $16,000 a month to get us mentioned in the press.  Fortunately
+reporters liked
+us.In our advice about
+getting traffic from search engines (I don't think the term SEO
+had been coined yet), we say there are only 7 that matter: Yahoo,
+AltaVista, Excite, WebCrawler, InfoSeek, Lycos, and HotBot.  Notice
+anything missing?  Google was incorporated that September.We supported online transactions via a company called 
+Cybercash,
+since if we lacked that feature we'd have gotten beaten up in product
+comparisons.  But Cybercash was so bad and most stores' order volumes
+were so low that it was better if merchants processed orders like phone orders.  We had a page in our site trying to talk merchants
+out of doing real time authorizations.The whole site was organized like a funnel, directing people to the
+test drive.
+It was a novel thing to be able to try out software online.  We put
+cgi-bin in our dynamic urls to fool competitors about how our
+software worked.We had some well
+known users.  Needless to say, Frederick's of Hollywood got the
+most traffic.  We charged a flat fee of $300/month for big stores,
+so it was a little alarming to have users who got lots of traffic.
+I once calculated how much Frederick's was costing us in bandwidth,
+and it was about $300/month.Since we hosted all the stores, which together were getting just
+over 10 million page views per month in June 1998, we consumed what
+at the time seemed a lot of bandwidth.  We had 2 T1s (3 Mb/sec)
+coming into our offices.  In those days there was no AWS.  Even
+colocating servers seemed too risky, considering how often things
+went wrong with them.  So we had our servers in our offices.  Or
+more precisely, in Trevor's office.  In return for the unique
+privilege of sharing his office with no other humans, he had to
+share it with 6 shrieking tower servers.  His office was nicknamed
+the Hot Tub on account of the heat they generated.  Most days his
+stack of window air conditioners could keep up.For describing pages, we had a template language called RTML, which
+supposedly stood for something, but which in fact I named after
+Rtm.  RTML was Common Lisp augmented by some macros and libraries,
+and concealed under a structure editor that made it look like it
+had syntax.Since we did continuous releases, our software didn't actually have
+versions.  But in those days the trade press expected versions, so
+we made them up.  If we wanted to get lots of attention, we made
+the version number an
+integer.  That "version 4.0" icon was generated by our own
+button generator, incidentally.  The whole Viaweb site was made
+with our software, even though it wasn't an online store, because
+we wanted to experience what our users did.At the end of 1997, we released a general purpose shopping search
+engine called Shopfind.  It
+was pretty advanced for the time.  It had a programmable crawler
+that could crawl most of the different stores online and pick out
+the products.

PaulGrahamEssays/want.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+November 2022Since I was about 9 I've been puzzled by the apparent contradiction
+between being made of matter that behaves in a predictable way, and
+the feeling that I could choose to do whatever I wanted. At the
+time I had a self-interested motive for exploring the question. At
+that age (like most succeeding ages) I was always in trouble with
+the authorities, and it seemed to me that there might possibly be
+some way to get out of trouble by arguing that I wasn't responsible
+for my actions. I gradually lost hope of that, but the puzzle
+remained: How do you reconcile being a machine made of matter with
+the feeling that you're free to choose what you do?
+[1]The best way to explain the answer may be to start with a slightly
+wrong version, and then fix it. The wrong version is: You can do
+what you want, but you can't want what you want. Yes, you can control
+what you do, but you'll do what you want, and you can't control
+that.The reason this is mistaken is that people do sometimes change what
+they want. People who don't want to want something — drug addicts,
+for example — can sometimes make themselves stop wanting it. And
+people who want to want something — who want to like classical
+music, or broccoli — sometimes succeed.So we modify our initial statement: You can do what you want, but
+you can't want to want what you want.That's still not quite true. It's possible to change what you want
+to want. I can imagine someone saying "I decided to stop wanting
+to like classical music." But we're getting closer to the truth.
+It's rare for people to change what they want to want, and the more
+"want to"s we add, the rarer it gets.We can get arbitrarily close to a true statement by adding more "want
+to"s in much the same way we can get arbitrarily close to 1 by adding
+more 9s to a string of 9s following a decimal point. In practice
+three or four "want to"s must surely be enough. It's hard even to
+envision what it would mean to change what you want to want to want
+to want, let alone actually do it.So one way to express the correct answer is to use a regular
+expression. You can do what you want, but there's some statement
+of the form "you can't (want to)* want what you want" that's true.
+Ultimately you get back to a want that you don't control.
+[2]
+Notes[1]
+I didn't know when I was 9 that matter might behave randomly,
+but I don't think it affects the problem much. Randomness destroys
+the ghost in the machine as effectively as determinism.[2]
+If you don't like using an expression, you can make the same
+point using higher-order desires: There is some n such that you
+don't control your nth-order desires.
+Thanks to Trevor Blackwell,
+Jessica Livingston, Robert Morris, and
+Michael Nielsen for reading drafts of this.

PaulGrahamEssays/web20.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,299 @@
+
+
+Want to start a startup?  Get funded by
+Y Combinator.
+
+
+
+
+November 2005Does "Web 2.0" mean anything?  Till recently I thought it didn't,
+but the truth turns out to be more complicated.  Originally, yes,
+it was meaningless.  Now it seems to have acquired a meaning.  And
+yet those who dislike the term are probably right, because if it
+means what I think it does, we don't need it.I first heard the phrase "Web 2.0" in the name of the Web 2.0
+conference in 2004.  At the time it was supposed to mean using "the
+web as a platform," which I took to refer to web-based applications.
+[1]So I was surprised at a conference this summer when Tim O'Reilly
+led a session intended to figure out a definition of "Web 2.0."
+Didn't it already mean using the web as a platform?  And if it
+didn't already mean something, why did we need the phrase at all?OriginsTim says the phrase "Web 2.0" first
+arose in "a brainstorming session between
+O'Reilly and Medialive International." What is Medialive International?
+"Producers of technology tradeshows and conferences," according to
+their site.  So presumably that's what this brainstorming session
+was about.  O'Reilly wanted to organize a conference about the web,
+and they were wondering what to call it.I don't think there was any deliberate plan to suggest there was a
+new version of the web.  They just wanted to make the point
+that the web mattered again.  It was a kind of semantic deficit
+spending: they knew new things were coming, and the "2.0" referred
+to whatever those might turn out to be.And they were right.  New things were coming.  But the new version
+number led to some awkwardness in the short term.  In the process
+of developing the pitch for the first conference, someone must have
+decided they'd better take a stab at explaining what that "2.0"
+referred to.  Whatever it meant, "the web as a platform" was at
+least not too constricting.The story about "Web 2.0" meaning the web as a platform didn't live
+much past the first conference.  By the second conference, what
+"Web 2.0" seemed to mean was something about democracy.  At least,
+it did when people wrote about it online.  The conference itself
+didn't seem very grassroots.  It cost $2800, so the only people who
+could afford to go were VCs and people from big companies.And yet, oddly enough, Ryan Singel's article
+about the conference in Wired News spoke of "throngs of
+geeks."  When a friend of mine asked Ryan about this, it was news
+to him.  He said he'd originally written something like "throngs
+of VCs and biz dev guys" but had later shortened it just to "throngs,"
+and that this must have in turn been expanded by the editors into
+"throngs of geeks."  After all, a Web 2.0 conference would presumably
+be full of geeks, right?Well, no.  There were about 7.  Even Tim O'Reilly was wearing a   
+suit, a sight so alien I couldn't parse it at first.  I saw
+him walk by and said to one of the O'Reilly people "that guy looks
+just like Tim.""Oh, that's Tim.  He bought a suit."
+I ran after him, and sure enough, it was.  He explained that he'd
+just bought it in Thailand.The 2005 Web 2.0 conference reminded me of Internet trade shows
+during the Bubble, full of prowling VCs looking for the next hot
+startup.  There was that same odd atmosphere created by a large  
+number of people determined not to miss out.  Miss out on what?
+They didn't know.  Whatever was going to happen—whatever Web 2.0
+turned out to be.I wouldn't quite call it "Bubble 2.0" just because VCs are eager
+to invest again.  The Internet is a genuinely big deal.  The bust
+was as much an overreaction as
+the boom.  It's to be expected that once we started to pull out of
+the bust, there would be a lot of growth in this area, just as there
+was in the industries that spiked the sharpest before the Depression.The reason this won't turn into a second Bubble is that the IPO
+market is gone.  Venture investors
+are driven by exit strategies.  The reason they were funding all  
+those laughable startups during the late 90s was that they hoped
+to sell them to gullible retail investors; they hoped to be laughing
+all the way to the bank.  Now that route is closed.  Now the default
+exit strategy is to get bought, and acquirers are less prone to
+irrational exuberance than IPO investors.  The closest you'll get 
+to Bubble valuations is Rupert Murdoch paying $580 million for   
+Myspace.  That's only off by a factor of 10 or so.1. AjaxDoes "Web 2.0" mean anything more than the name of a conference
+yet?  I don't like to admit it, but it's starting to.  When people
+say "Web 2.0" now, I have some idea what they mean.  And the fact
+that I both despise the phrase and understand it is the surest proof
+that it has started to mean something.One ingredient of its meaning is certainly Ajax, which I can still
+only just bear to use without scare quotes.  Basically, what "Ajax"
+means is "Javascript now works."  And that in turn means that
+web-based applications can now be made to work much more like desktop
+ones.As you read this, a whole new generation
+of software is being written to take advantage of Ajax.  There
+hasn't been such a wave of new applications since microcomputers
+first appeared.  Even Microsoft sees it, but it's too late for them
+to do anything more than leak "internal"  
+documents designed to give the impression they're on top of this
+new trend.In fact the new generation of software is being written way too
+fast for Microsoft even to channel it, let alone write their own
+in house.  Their only hope now is to buy all the best Ajax startups
+before Google does.  And even that's going to be hard, because
+Google has as big a head start in buying microstartups as it did
+in search a few years ago.  After all, Google Maps, the canonical
+Ajax application, was the result of a startup they bought.So ironically the original description of the Web 2.0 conference
+turned out to be partially right: web-based applications are a big
+component of Web 2.0.  But I'm convinced they got this right by 
+accident.  The Ajax boom didn't start till early 2005, when Google
+Maps appeared and the term "Ajax" was coined.2. DemocracyThe second big element of Web 2.0 is democracy.  We now have several
+examples to prove that amateurs can   
+surpass professionals, when they have the right kind of system to 
+channel their efforts.  Wikipedia
+may be the most famous.  Experts have given Wikipedia middling
+reviews, but they miss the critical point: it's good enough.  And   
+it's free, which means people actually read it.  On the web, articles
+you have to pay for might as well not exist.  Even if you were    
+willing to pay to read them yourself, you can't link to them.    
+They're not part of the conversation.Another place democracy seems to win is in deciding what counts as
+news.  I never look at any news site now except Reddit.
+[2]
+ I know if something major
+happens, or someone writes a particularly interesting article, it   
+will show up there.  Why bother checking the front page of any
+specific paper or magazine?  Reddit's like an RSS feed for the whole
+web, with a filter for quality.  Similar sites include Digg, a technology news site that's
+rapidly approaching Slashdot in popularity, and del.icio.us, the collaborative
+bookmarking network that set off the "tagging" movement.  And whereas
+Wikipedia's main appeal is that it's good enough and free, these
+sites suggest that voters do a significantly better job than human
+editors.The most dramatic example of Web 2.0 democracy is not in the selection
+of ideas, but their production.  
+I've noticed for a while that the stuff I read on individual people's
+sites is as good as or better than the stuff I read in newspapers
+and magazines.  And now I have independent evidence: the top links
+on Reddit are generally links to individual people's sites rather  
+than to magazine articles or news stories.My experience of writing
+for magazines suggests an explanation.  Editors.  They control the
+topics you can write about, and they can generally rewrite whatever
+you produce.  The result is to damp extremes.  Editing yields 95th
+percentile writing—95% of articles are improved by it, but 5% are
+dragged down.  5% of the time you get "throngs of geeks."On the web, people can publish whatever they want.  Nearly all of
+it falls short of the editor-damped writing in print publications.
+But the pool of writers is very, very large.  If it's large enough,
+the lack of damping means the best writing online should surpass  
+the best in print.
+[3]  
+And now that the web has evolved mechanisms
+for selecting good stuff, the web wins net.  Selection beats damping,
+for the same reason market economies beat centrally planned ones.Even the startups are different this time around.  They are to the  
+startups of the Bubble what bloggers are to the print media.  During
+the Bubble, a startup meant a company headed by an MBA that was   
+blowing through several million dollars of VC money to "get big
+fast" in the most literal sense.  Now it means a smaller, younger, more technical group that just      
+decided to make something great.  They'll decide later if they want  
+to raise VC-scale funding, and if they take it, they'll take it on
+their terms.3. Don't Maltreat UsersI think everyone would agree that democracy and Ajax are elements
+of "Web 2.0."  I also see a third: not to maltreat users.  During
+the Bubble a lot of popular sites were quite high-handed with users.
+And not just in obvious ways, like making them register, or subjecting
+them to annoying ads.  The very design of the average site in the   
+late 90s was an abuse.  Many of the most popular sites were loaded
+with obtrusive branding that made them slow to load and sent the
+user the message: this is our site, not yours.  (There's a physical
+analog in the Intel and Microsoft stickers that come on some
+laptops.)I think the root of the problem was that sites felt they were giving
+something away for free, and till recently a company giving anything
+away for free could be pretty high-handed about it.  Sometimes it
+reached the point of economic sadism: site owners assumed that the
+more pain they caused the user, the more benefit it must be to them.  
+The most dramatic remnant of this model may be at salon.com, where   
+you can read the beginning of a story, but to get the rest you have
+sit through a movie.At Y Combinator we advise all the startups we fund never to lord
+it over users.  Never make users register, unless you need to in
+order to store something for them.  If you do make users register,   
+never make them wait for a confirmation link in an email; in fact,
+don't even ask for their email address unless you need it for some
+reason.  Don't ask them any unnecessary questions.  Never send them
+email unless they explicitly ask for it.  Never frame pages you
+link to, or open them in new windows.  If you have a free version 
+and a pay version, don't make the free version too restricted.  And
+if you find yourself asking "should we allow users to do x?" just 
+answer "yes" whenever you're unsure.  Err on the side of generosity.In How to Start a Startup I advised startups
+never to let anyone fly under them, meaning never to let any other
+company offer a cheaper, easier solution.  Another way to fly low 
+is to give users more power.  Let users do what they want.  If you 
+don't and a competitor does, you're in trouble.iTunes is Web 2.0ish in this sense.  Finally you can buy individual
+songs instead of having to buy whole albums.  The recording industry
+hated the idea and resisted it as long as possible.  But it was
+obvious what users wanted, so Apple flew under the labels.
+[4]
+Though really it might be better to describe iTunes as Web 1.5.     
+Web 2.0 applied to music would probably mean individual bands giving
+away DRMless songs for free.The ultimate way to be nice to users is to give them something for
+free that competitors charge for.  During the 90s a lot of people   
+probably thought we'd have some working system for micropayments     
+by now.  In fact things have gone in the other direction.  The most   
+successful sites are the ones that figure out new ways to give stuff
+away for free.  Craigslist has largely destroyed the classified ad
+sites of the 90s, and OkCupid looks likely to do the same to the
+previous generation of dating sites.Serving web pages is very, very cheap.  If you can make even a   
+fraction of a cent per page view, you can make a profit.  And
+technology for targeting ads continues to improve.  I wouldn't be
+surprised if ten years from now eBay had been supplanted by an      
+ad-supported freeBay (or, more likely, gBay).Odd as it might sound, we tell startups that they should try to
+make as little money as possible.  If you can figure out a way to
+turn a billion dollar industry into a fifty million dollar industry,
+so much the better, if all fifty million go to you.  Though indeed,
+making things cheaper often turns out to generate more money in the
+end, just as automating things often turns out to generate more
+jobs.The ultimate target is Microsoft.  What a bang that balloon is going
+to make when someone pops it by offering a free web-based alternative 
+to MS Office.
+[5]
+Who will?  Google?  They seem to be taking their
+time.  I suspect the pin will be wielded by a couple of 20 year old
+hackers who are too naive to be intimidated by the idea.  (How hard
+can it be?)The Common ThreadAjax, democracy, and not dissing users.  What do they all have in  
+common?  I didn't realize they had anything in common till recently,
+which is one of the reasons I disliked the term "Web 2.0" so much.
+It seemed that it was being used as a label for whatever happened
+to be new—that it didn't predict anything.But there is a common thread.  Web 2.0 means using the web the way
+it's meant to be used.  The "trends" we're seeing now are simply
+the inherent nature of the web emerging from under the broken models
+that got imposed on it during the Bubble.I realized this when I read an  interview with
+Joe Kraus, the co-founder of Excite.
+[6]
+
+  Excite really never got the business model right at all.  We fell 
+  into the classic problem of how when a new medium comes out it
+  adopts the practices, the content, the business models of the old
+  medium—which fails, and then the more appropriate models get
+  figured out.
+
+It may have seemed as if not much was happening during the years
+after the Bubble burst.  But in retrospect, something was happening:
+the web was finding its natural angle of repose.  The democracy 
+component, for example—that's not an innovation, in the sense of
+something someone made happen.  That's what the web naturally tends
+to produce.Ditto for the idea of delivering desktop-like applications over the
+web.  That idea is almost as old as the web.  But the first time    
+around it was co-opted by Sun, and we got Java applets.  Java has
+since been remade into a generic replacement for C++, but in 1996
+the story about Java was that it represented a new model of software.
+Instead of desktop applications, you'd run Java "applets" delivered
+from a server.This plan collapsed under its own weight. Microsoft helped kill it,
+but it would have died anyway.  There was no uptake among hackers.
+When you find PR firms promoting
+something as the next development platform, you can be sure it's
+not.  If it were, you wouldn't need PR firms to tell you, because   
+hackers would already be writing stuff on top of it, the way sites    
+like Busmonster used Google Maps as a
+platform before Google even meant it to be one.The proof that Ajax is the next hot platform is that thousands of  
+hackers have spontaneously started building things on top
+of it.  Mikey likes it.There's another thing all three components of Web 2.0 have in common.
+Here's a clue.  Suppose you approached investors with the following
+idea for a Web 2.0 startup:
+
+  Sites like del.icio.us and flickr allow users to "tag" content
+  with descriptive tokens.  But there is also huge source of
+  implicit tags that they ignore: the text within web links.
+  Moreover, these links represent a social network connecting the   
+  individuals and organizations who created the pages, and by using
+  graph theory we can compute from this network an estimate of the
+  reputation of each member.  We plan to mine the web for these 
+  implicit tags, and use them together with the reputation hierarchy
+  they embody to enhance web searches.
+
+How long do you think it would take them on average to realize that
+it was a description of Google?Google was a pioneer in all three components of Web 2.0: their core
+business sounds crushingly hip when described in Web 2.0 terms, 
+"Don't maltreat users" is a subset of "Don't be evil," and of course
+Google set off the whole Ajax boom with Google Maps.Web 2.0 means using the web as it was meant to be used, and Google
+does.  That's their secret.    They're sailing with the wind, instead of sitting  
+becalmed praying for a business model, like the print media, or   
+trying to tack upwind by suing their customers, like Microsoft and 
+the record labels.
+[7]Google doesn't try to force things to happen their way.  They try   
+to figure out what's going to happen, and arrange to be standing 
+there when it does.  That's the way to approach technology—and 
+as business includes an ever larger technological component, the
+right way to do business.The fact that Google is a "Web 2.0" company shows that, while
+meaningful, the term is also rather bogus.  It's like the word
+"allopathic."  It just means doing things right, and it's a bad   
+sign when you have a special word for that.
+Notes[1]
+From the conference
+site, June 2004: "While the first wave of the Web was closely  
+tied to the browser, the second wave extends applications across    
+the web and enables a new generation of services and business
+opportunities."  To the extent this means anything, it seems to be
+about 
+web-based applications.[2]
+Disclosure: Reddit was funded by 
+Y Combinator.  But although
+I started using it out of loyalty to the home team, I've become a
+genuine addict.  While we're at it, I'm also an investor in
+!MSFT, having sold all my shares earlier this year.[3]
+I'm not against editing. I spend more time editing than
+writing, and I have a group of picky friends who proofread almost
+everything I write.  What I dislike is editing done after the fact  
+by someone else.[4]
+Obvious is an understatement.  Users had been climbing in through  
+the window for years before Apple finally moved the door.[5]
+Hint: the way to create a web-based alternative to Office may
+not be to write every component yourself, but to establish a protocol
+for web-based apps to share a virtual home directory spread across
+multiple servers.  Or it may be to write it all yourself.[6]
+In Jessica Livingston's
+Founders at
+Work.[7]
+Microsoft didn't sue their customers directly, but they seem 
+to have done all they could to help SCO sue them.Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Sarah Harlin, Jessica Livingston, Peter
+Norvig, Aaron Swartz, and Jeff Weiner for reading drafts of this, and to the
+guys at O'Reilly and Adaptive Path for answering my questions.

PaulGrahamEssays/weird.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+August 2021When people say that in their experience all programming languages
+are basically equivalent, they're making a statement not about
+languages but about the kind of programming they've done.99.5% of programming consists of gluing together calls to library
+functions. All popular languages are equally good at this. So one
+can easily spend one's whole career operating in the intersection
+of popular programming languages.But the other .5% of programming is disproportionately interesting.
+If you want to learn what it consists of, the weirdness of weird
+languages is a good clue to follow.Weird languages aren't weird by accident. Not the good ones, at
+least. The weirdness of the good ones usually implies the existence
+of some form of programming that's not just the usual gluing together
+of library calls.A concrete example: Lisp macros. Lisp macros seem weird even to
+many Lisp programmers. They're not only not in the intersection of
+popular languages, but by their nature would be hard to implement
+properly in a language without turning it into a dialect of
+Lisp. And macros are definitely evidence of techniques that go
+beyond glue programming. For example, solving problems by first
+writing a language for problems of that type, and then writing
+your specific application in it. Nor is this all you can do with
+macros; it's just one region in a space of program-manipulating
+techniques that even now is far from fully explored.So if you want to expand your concept of what programming can be,
+one way to do it is by learning weird languages. Pick a language
+that most programmers consider weird but whose median user is smart,
+and then focus on the differences between this language and the
+intersection of popular languages. What can you say in this language
+that would be impossibly inconvenient to say in others? In the
+process of learning how to say things you couldn't previously say,
+you'll probably be learning how to think things you couldn't
+previously think.
+Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Patrick Collison, Daniel Gackle, Amjad
+Masad, and Robert Morris for reading drafts of this.