That year, probably over 1,000 photo sharing startups were funded, while there were fewer than ten nuclear fusion startups in existence. Easy startups are easy to start but hard to make successful.

On the paradox that crowded easy markets are harder than ambitious empty ones.

Few recruiting messages are as powerful (when true) as 'the world needs this, it won't happen any time soon if we don't do it, and we are much less likely to succeed if you don't join.'

There is a derivative of the Peter Principle at play here—your startup will rise to the level where it can no longer attract enough talented people. The limiting factor for many careers eventually becomes how many talented people you know and can get to work with you.

Part of the magic of Silicon Valley is that people default to taking you seriously if you're willing to be serious—they've learned it's a very expensive mistake, in aggregate, not to. You can get funded for AGI, gene editing, or carbon sequestration without a degree or much experience.

Let yourself become more ambitious—figure out the most interesting version of where what you're working on could go. Then talk about that big vision and work relentlessly towards it, but always have a reasonable next step. You don't want step one to be incorporating the company and step two to be going to Mars.

In a world of compounding advantages where most people are operating on a 3 year timeframe and you're operating on a 10 year timeframe, you'll have a very large edge. Most people aren't willing to make that commitment, which is part of why they pick 'easy' startups.

An easy startup is a headwind; a hard startup is a tailwind. If people care about your success because you seem committed to doing something significant, it's a background force helping with hiring, advice, partnerships, and fundraising.