How about instead I work 20 hour weeks building something that will pay my rent initially, pay for my winter house on that nice point break in Oz after 5 years, then spoil my kids rotten in 20. That's a payoff more in line with my lifestyle, and I get to keep living my life in the meantime.

I think a lot of tech startups tend to miss this point and go straight for funding. They think that they'll just get big first and worry about "monetization" later. That's a crap-shoot! Such high risk is a tax for fools.

If you're really thinking about being in business for yourself, just start an honest business. Start with the nuts and bolts. Collect some invoices and sell some product. If your demand begins to out-pace your ability to deliver, then you have a good indication that you should go get funding.

It's just a perspective. The "funding first, revenue later" idea has worked. It's just not for everyone. You don't have to quit your job out-right to start a business. I know people who work at a part-time job while they work on their business. One day they hope to quit that too and let their business take them where ever it may. It's a viable alternative to the nerve-wracking pain of selling out to the VC merry-go-round.

Thank you! Being an entrepreneur is not an end, it's a means. I've seen so many articles lately about how you should quit your job and do a startup, even if you don't have a good idea or business sense.

I feel really bad for any customers those businesses draw in, because they are in for some trouble. Even if the business survives (and it's not likely to) then the customers will have to deal with the fact that the business isn't focused on them, it's about 'being an entrepreneur.' Totally wrong.

Getting a bit tired of the narrow mindesness of the community about how heroic they are ,what great opninions they have, how cool they are. But they actually are just a big bag of hot air.

Think the whole Quora discussion is a bit more of the same: Look at me I have an opinion. I'm changing the world, I'm blah blah.

There are still children dying of hunger, even in America a lot of people are hungry, unemployed or don't receive decent medical care. So maybe in your little eco-sphere you are changing the world. But are you changing it for the better?

What's your opinion about this?

Hiring and firing suck just the same for both groups. Borrowing money offers the same temptations and one's family doesn't stop whispering,"when will he get a real job," just because it's a startup.

Doing a startup, the kind that Mark means, the kind that he sees -- specifically those with a story about how they're going to become billion dollar company -- works best with some specific personality traits. Is that really that hard to swallow?

Does it mean people without those can't start businesses? Heavens no.

These arguments are effectively a straw-man -- the point of contention is on the definition of a startup, not on who's fit to do one. They seem to redefine "startup" as "business doing something with the internet" and then proceed to debunk Mark's argument about who's well suited for those. But again, that's completely (intentionally?) missing the point.

Also the "lottery" hooky from DHH is dumb. Nobody compares getting to the top of other fields as pure chance -- why would it be different with startups? Did Michael Jordan and Zuck have a string of lucky breaks along the way? No doubt. But do you really think hard work had no more to do with it than it did for the person scratching the foil off of a lotto scratch-card? Do you really think there aren't recognizable personality patterns in top athletes? Really?

I think much of it is a reaction to the way in which Suster has appropriated the term "entrepreneur." All entrepreneurs are not in startups and all entrepreneurs do not swing for the fences every time (just as Tiger Woods doesn't fire every shot at the pin). Most serial entrepreneurs do their deals with a pro forma not a prototype. Ted Turner built his media empire on sure things not with lottery tickets.

The startup model creates a somewhat false impression of a radical division between entrepreneurs and investors. The damping effect for VC's in Suster's graphs is more a function of wealth than role. The short stack will always have more highs and lows at the final table than the chip leader.

Is this part of the dynamic behind restaurant websites so often sucking badly? (Because the requirements are mainly hashed out between people who mainly relate to how a site looks.)

This leads to an interesting mechanic where designers have a much greater project throughput than programmers and subsequently have more time to nurture the all important client relationships.

It also means it takes more than one programmer to service one designer.

if i were a vc, i probably would not like this confession. i'd better encourage young people to value the startup life itself.

However, on Wall Street, this type of attitude is highly valued -- you want to find the young kid with massive insecurities who wants to have $1 billion and when he gets it will want $10 billion. You give him a desk and tax his earnings.