zlacker

>>mjcl+(OP)
> 4. Naughtiness

> Though 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.

"What We Look for in Founders", PG

https://paulgraham.com/founders.html

I think the more powerful you become, the less endearing this trait is.

>>dilap+S1
This quote actually makes me disgusted. I don't think this is a quality to encourage on, especially since despite the tone it reads more as abuse.

>>aeurie+34
I think governance is overly restrictive and stifles innovation. For example I love that Uber and Airbnb exist even though they both sort of skirt or acceptably break rules in place that a complete rule follower wouldn’t have violated.

Taking taxis 15 years ago was an absolute scammy shitty experience and it’s only marginally better now thanks to an actual competitive marketplace