Larry Ellison's ambitious, half-billion-dollar investment in sustainable farming in Hawaii has largely failed to achieve its goals. His company, Sensei Farms, aimed to revolutionize agriculture with high-tech greenhouses and hydroponic techniques, promising locally grown produce and food security. However, after years of operation and significant financial losses, Sensei has dramatically scaled back its operations, laying off staff and abandoning plans for expansion. While the company claims to be pivoting towards research and development, the project is widely considered a costly misstep, demonstrating the difficulty of translating tech industry success to the complexities of agriculture.
After their startup failed, the founder launched VcSubsidized.com to sell off the remaining inventory. The website's tongue-in-cheek name acknowledges the venture capital funding that allowed for the initial product creation, now being recouped through discounted sales. The products themselves, primarily blankets and pillows made with natural materials like alpaca and cashmere, are presented with straightforward descriptions and high-quality photos. The site's simple design and the founder's transparent explanation of the startup's demise contribute to a sense of authenticity.
HN commenters largely found the VCSubsidized.com site humorous and appreciated the creator's entrepreneurial spirit and marketing savvy. Some questioned the longevity of the domain name's availability given its potentially controversial nature. Others discussed the prevalence of subsidized goods and services in the startup ecosystem, with some pointing out that the practice isn't inherently negative and can benefit consumers. A few commenters shared personal anecdotes of acquiring and reselling goods from failed startups. The overall sentiment was positive, with the project viewed as a clever commentary on startup culture.
Intel's $2 billion acquisition of Habana Labs, an Israeli AI chip startup, is considered a failure. Instead of leveraging Habana's innovative Gaudi processors, which outperformed Intel's own offerings for AI training, Intel prioritized its existing, less competitive technology. This ultimately led to Habana's stagnation, an exodus of key personnel, and Intel falling behind Nvidia in the burgeoning AI chip market. The decision is attributed to internal politics, resistance to change, and a failure to recognize the transformative potential of Habana's technology.
HN commenters generally agree that Habana's acquisition by Intel was mishandled, leading to its demise and Intel losing ground in the AI race. Several point to Intel's bureaucratic structure and inability to integrate acquired companies effectively as the primary culprit. Some argue that Intel's focus on CPUs hindered its ability to recognize the importance of GPUs and specialized AI hardware, leading them to sideline Habana's promising technology. Others suggest that the acquisition price itself might have been inflated, setting unreasonable expectations for Habana's success. A few commenters offer alternative perspectives, questioning whether Habana's technology was truly revolutionary or if its failure was inevitable regardless of Intel's involvement. However, the dominant narrative is one of a promising startup stifled by a corporate giant, highlighting the challenges of integrating innovative acquisitions into established structures.
The author describes how they inadvertently trained themselves to equate effort with negative outcomes. Starting with a challenging physics class, they developed a belief that trying hard and still failing was worse than not trying at all. This self-protective mechanism spread to other areas of their life, leading to procrastination and avoidance of difficult tasks. Eventually, they recognized this pattern of self-sabotage and began the process of unlearning it by reframing failure as a necessary step in learning and growth, and focusing on the process rather than solely on outcomes. They began tackling challenging tasks, celebrating small victories, and gradually rebuilding their self-confidence.
HN commenters largely agreed with the author's premise that negative self-talk and a focus on potential failure can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Several shared similar experiences of psyching themselves out or developing learned helplessness. Some suggested techniques to combat this, including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), positive self-talk, and focusing on small wins. One commenter pointed out the link between the article's concept and the idea of "locus of control," emphasizing the importance of feeling agency over one's actions. Another questioned the framing of "conditioning," suggesting it implied a more passive process than the conscious, albeit negative, choices described. A few comments also discussed the potential evolutionary basis for negativity bias and its role in risk avoidance.
The author recounts failing a FizzBuzz coding challenge during a job interview, despite having significant programming experience. They were asked to write the solution on a whiteboard without an IDE, a task they found surprisingly difficult due to the pressure and lack of syntax highlighting/autocompletion. They stumbled on syntax and struggled to articulate their thought process while writing, ultimately producing incorrect and messy code. The experience highlighted the disconnect between real-world coding practices and the artificial environment of whiteboard interviews, leaving the author questioning their value. Though disappointed, they reflected on the lessons learned and the importance of practicing coding fundamentals even with extensive experience.
HN commenters largely sided with the author of the blog post, finding the interviewer's dismissal based on a slightly different FizzBuzz implementation unreasonable and indicative of a poor hiring process. Several pointed out that the requested solution, printing "FizzBuzz" only when divisible by both 3 and 5 instead of by either 3 or 5, is not the typical understanding of FizzBuzz and creates unnecessary complexity. Some questioned the interviewer's coding abilities and suggested the company dodged a bullet by not hiring the author. A few commenters, however, defended the interviewer, arguing that following instructions precisely is critical and that the author's code technically failed to meet the stated requirements. The ambiguity of the prompt and the interviewer's apparent unwillingness to clarify were also criticized as red flags.
Ron Garrett reflects on six failed startup attempts, rejecting the label of "failure" and instead focusing on the valuable lessons learned. He emphasizes the importance of choosing the right co-founder, validating ideas early and often, building a minimum viable product (MVP) quickly, and iterating based on user feedback. Marketing and distribution proved crucial, and while passion is essential, it must be coupled with a realistic market and sustainable business model. Ultimately, he learned that "failing fast" and adapting are key to entrepreneurial growth, viewing each setback as a stepping stone toward future success.
HN commenters largely praised the author's vulnerability and honesty in sharing their startup failures. Several highlighted the importance of recognizing sunk cost fallacy and knowing when to pivot or quit. Some questioned the framing of the experiences as "failures," arguing that valuable lessons and growth emerged from them. A few commenters shared their own similar experiences, emphasizing the emotional toll of startup struggles. Others offered practical advice, such as validating ideas early and prioritizing distribution. The prevailing sentiment was one of empathy and encouragement, acknowledging the difficulty of entrepreneurship and the courage it takes to try repeatedly.
Summary of Comments ( 19 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43161188
Hacker News commenters are largely skeptical of Ellison's Lanai farming project. Many question the economic viability of high-tech, hydroponic farming at scale, especially given the transportation costs from a remote island. Some see it as a vanity project, disconnected from the realities of agriculture and food security. Others point out the irony of Ellison, known for his aggressive business practices, now promoting sustainability. A few commenters offer more nuanced perspectives, suggesting that the project's failure might stem from management issues rather than inherent flaws in the concept, while others highlight the difficulty of disrupting established industries like agriculture. Several comments also discuss the potential for unintended consequences, such as the impact on local water resources and the ethical implications of controlling food production.
The Hacker News post titled "Larry Ellison's Half-Billion-Dollar Quest to Change Farming Has Been a Bust" has generated a fair number of comments discussing the WSJ article about Larry Ellison's farming venture in Hawaii. Many of the comments express skepticism and cynicism about the project's success and Ellison's motivations.
Several commenters highlight the inherent difficulties of large-scale agriculture and the naivete of approaching it as a purely technological challenge. They point out that farming involves complex biological and ecological systems that are not easily optimized through technology alone, and that Ellison's approach seems to disregard the expertise of experienced farmers. Some suggest that Ellison's wealth allows him to pursue such ventures without the same pressure for profitability that would constrain other businesses, leading to unsustainable practices and ultimately, failure.
There's a recurring theme of questioning Ellison's true goals. Some speculate that the farming project is more about lifestyle and personal interest than genuine agricultural innovation or food security. Others suggest tax advantages or land speculation might be motivating factors. The idea that Ellison is using the farm as a "rich person's hobby" is mentioned more than once.
A few commenters draw parallels to other tech billionaires' forays into seemingly unrelated fields, often with less-than-stellar results. This leads to broader discussions about the limitations of a Silicon Valley mindset when applied to complex real-world problems outside the tech sphere. The idea that "software solutions" can't fix everything is a recurring sentiment.
Some commenters express concern about the environmental impact of Ellison's project, particularly regarding water usage in a water-stressed region. They question the sustainability of the venture and its potential consequences for the local ecosystem.
While critical of Ellison's approach, some comments offer alternative perspectives. Some suggest that even failed projects can yield valuable lessons and contribute to progress in the long run. Others point out that innovation often involves experimentation and failure, and that Ellison's investment, even if unsuccessful, might stimulate further development in sustainable agriculture.
Finally, a few commenters express a degree of admiration for Ellison's ambition and willingness to invest in a challenging field. While skeptical of the project's current success, they acknowledge the importance of tackling food security and exploring new approaches to agriculture.