How to Live Before You Die: What I’ve Learned From Entrustet

Category : Entrustet, Personal Thoughts
Posted on by

At the end of the segment on NPR’s Forum yesterday, the host asked me if my life or worldview has changed at all since starting a death-focused company.  I deal with death on a regular basis.  It’s forced me to confront many issues of mortality and the unpleasantness that goes along with thinking about my own demise.  I’m thankful that I’ve had the opportunity to think about issues that most people only think about in their 50s or even potentially on their death beds.

So how has working in the “digital death” industry changed me and my worldview?

I no longer take anything for granted.  I’ve read so many stories of people dying unexpectedly that I’ve realized how special life truly is.  Jesse will say from time to time “Isn’t it ridiculous that we’re alive?  Think about all of the things that had to go right for us to be here today. It’s amazing.”  It really is true.

If the average life expectancy is 80 these days, it means we only have 29,200 days on this Earth.  Before Entrustet, sometimes I thought days were boring, or were simply impediments in time before I got to do something I really wanted to do.  Now that I’ve been working on Entrustet for almost two years, I never take a single day for granted.  It’s one of my 29,200, and only if I’m lucky.

Dealing with death has caused me to care even less about what other people think.  You only live once, so do what makes you happy.  In the whole scheme of things, rejection isn’t that big of a deal.  Seize your opportunities and take your chances with alacrity.  You never know when you won’t have the ability to take them in the future.

I’ve become even less materialistic.  You can’t take your possessions or your money with you when you die, so I’ve come to realize that I don’t need things or to make $1b (unless we get hyper inflation!).  When I read about people on their deathbeds, they all say they regret not spending more time with friends and family or taking a trip to a foreign country or taking the opportunity to work on the things they loved.  They never say they wished they had bought a bigger TV or a nicer car.  I’ve realized that it truly doesn’t take much (money) for me to be happy.  I know I can live well on a small amount of money.

It’s strange that I’m dealing with these issues as a 25 year old, but I think I’m lucky.  Most people push the idea of death down the road and many people don’t end up following their dreams.  I’m glad I’m realizing these truths now, not when I’m 50, 90 or not at all.  Sometimes it takes a near death experience, but for me, all it’s taken is being near death.

Please watch Steve Jobs’ speech to Stanford’s graduation class.  Jobs was diagnosed with an extremely deadly type of cancer and miraculously survived.  He’s an authority on how to live before you die and his speech is where I got the title for my post.  Do yourself a favor and take the time to watch.  You only live once, make the most of it!

My First Christmas Away From Home

Category : Personal Thoughts, Startup Chile
Posted on by

I’ve always been able to go back home to see my family during Christmas, but this year, I’m in Santiago.  I have strong memories of going to my Grandma’s house on Christmas Eve, sitting around a huge table with 10-15 extended family members.  We usually had the same food each year and then would open presents.  The youngest always had to pass out presents, so for a few years I did and then my brother took over for me.  When she moved into a nursing home, we took the festivities to her.  We’d cook at home and then head over and do a shortened version of Christmas Eve.  Although the location changed, it was still the same.

On Christmas Day, we’d stay at our house, make breakfast and then open presents with just my parents and brother.  Sometimes we’d go to a movie in the afternoon.  I have strong memories of coming downstairs and opening presents with the family.  This year, I missed our family traditions and hanging out with my family, but still had a great time with new friends.

On Christmas Eve, we had an international potluck of Startup Chile entrepreneurs on the 18th floor of an apartment building in Santiago.  Each person had to bring a dish that reminded them of Christmas from home and it was great to share Christmas with people from South Africa, Ireland, Germany, China, Portugal, Canada, Isreal and the US.  As we watched the sun set over the Andes, we were all a bit homesick, but as we talked, it passed.

We were all thankful that we all have “jobs” that allow us to travel the world, learn about new cultures and meet people from all the world, all while working on projects that we enjoy.  One month in, I can’t stress enough how happy I am to have this opportunity.

On Christmas day, most of the crew went over Shahar’s apartment where we grilled and hung out on his rooftop pool.  We spent the whole day sitting in the sun, drinking beer, wine and pisco and enjoying being away from winter.  It wasn’t quite a white Christmas (although a Chilean street musician was playing “Let it Snow” outside my window yesterday).  Judging from my shoulders today, it was a red one.

It was sort of strange being away from home and I missed our family traditions, but it was great to celebrate the season with my new friends and reflect on just how lucky we all are to be able to do what we want with our lives.  Here’s a few pictures from Christmas Day:

Meat
Jesse, Tiago, George, me
Rooftop Pool
Shahar, Me
Enrique and Jesse
George and his dog Gaston

Punishing Failure, Stifling Innovation: How Culture Affects Who Goes into Entrepreneurship

Category : Entrepreneurship, Startup Chile
Posted on by

I wrote a post last week about some of challenges facing Chilean would-be entrepreneurs because of the culture.  Overall, Chilean culture punishes failure, which stifles innovation.

It got me thinking and I realized that it seems to me that a fixed percentage of people in the world are entrepreneurial.  I’m not sure what the exact number is but if I had to guess, it’s probably around 10% and I’d be willing to bet that percentage is fairly static across the world.  I believe that these 10% have the skills, desire and entrepreneurial spirit to start a business and succeed.  10% of Americans, Saudis, Chileans, Spaniards and South Africans all have the desire to start businesses, so why do some places have lots of entrepreneurship and others don’t?

Why does the US have a higher percentage of entrepreneurs than Chile, Saudi Arabia or other places around the world.  And in the US why do Silicon Valley, NYC, Austin, Boulder and Boston have a higher percentage of entrepreneurs compared to Des Moines, Tallahassee and Phoenix?

I believe that certain cultural values free up the entrepreneurial 10% to actually start businesses and succeed.  For example, in the United States, we reward risk taking, business ownership and making money.  On average, we also love innovation, learning and trying new things.  We love rags to riches stories, even if they are only partly true.  If someone’s business fails, it’s seen as experience, not a black mark.  In the US, these values are stronger in San Francisco and Austin than in Cleveland and Memphis.

In other parts of the world, there are many different cultural pressures that stifle innovation: punishing failure, punishing innovation, closed culture.  Some places even look down on successful people.

In Silicon Valley, I bet 20% of the people are entrepreneurs in some way shape or form.  In Austin, maybe 8%.  In Chile it’s .01%.  I believe that all cultures start out with the same 10% who can start businesses, but some cultures push people who may not have started businesses to do it, while others push people who would have otherwise started a business to shy away.  The most important thing entrepreneurs, government and academics can do is to try to free the people who would start a business, but don’t because of cultural pressures.

I’ve seen it first hand in Madison.  When I was 19 and just starting with ExchangeHut, there were not many young entrepreneurs.  I only knew 4-5 students and recent grads who were starting businesses.  After JellyFish sold to Microsoft, Networked Insights started to have some success and young entrepreneurs like those in the Burrill Business Plan Competition started to get press in national publications and have some success, other people started to see that they too could start a business.  Capital Entrepreneurs has accelerated the process, along with all sorts of cool initiatives from the startup community like barcamp, forward tech festival, high tech happy hour and more.  I think Madison went from a 1% to a 3% city in the last five years.  We still have a long way to go, but by unlocking the pent up entrepreneurial talent, we’ve seen an explosion in entrepreneurship.  Just wait until we see what Madison looks like at 5%!

In Chile, I’d estimate that we’re at .1%: for every 1000 people who are entrepreneurs at heart, only 1 starts a business.  That’s 1/1000!  In Silicon Valley, it’s probably 200/1000, Austin 80/1000 and so on.

Part of Start-Up Chile‘s mission is to introduce entrepreneurs from all over the world into Chile’s culture to try to break the cultural pressures that punish failure and stifle innovation.  I believe that we should be focusing on the other 9.9% of Chileans who might start a business if they were not afraid of being punished for their failure.  If we can double the amount of entrepreneurs who start businesses, it will be a huge win for Chile.  I see similar parallels to Madison and the entrepreneurial community is starting to take shape.  People just need the entrepreneurial push!

What do you think?  Are entrepreneurs distributed equally across the world or are more entrepreneurs born in one country compared to another?  What can you do to help free up the rest of the entrepreneurs who are scared to make the leap?

Julian Assange is a Hypocrite, Not the Leader You’ve Been Looking For

Category : Political Science & Economics
Posted on by

I haven’t written about Wikileaks at all yet because I’ve been trying to figure out where I stand on the issue.  I’m not comfortable with the response to the controversy from pretty much anyone so far.  I don’t like that the US and other governments around the world are going after Julian Assange for doing the same thing the NY Times did in 1970.  The Supreme Court ruled that the Times could publish the Pentagon Papers and I don’t see how this is any different.

Additionally, Assange’s partner papers, including the Times, Guardian, El Mundo, Der Spiegel, published the same information and the government is not going after them.  Just because Assange is the first one to break the story doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve freedom of the press.  With the way the Internet has developed, bloggers deserve the protection of freedom of the press.

The US would never have gone after the NY Times or another respected publication if they had broken the story because the Times would not have buckled and there would have been public outcry about the 1st amendment.  Assange is one person, so it’s easier to pick on the weaker person.  I don’t like the implications that if the US doesn’t like a blogger’s writings, they can throw him in jail, say he should be killed or that he is a terrorist.

On the other hand, I’m not comfortable at all with Assange the person or many of his extremely loyal followers.  I believe that diplomats around the world need to be able to share the truth with each other without fear that this information will become public.  For example, I never really use Facebook Chat because I assume that some day, everything I wrote will be public.  Instead, I use gchat off the record if I want to talk with my friends.  People need the ability to talk candidly and our diplomats are no different.

Additionally, I don’t agree that transparency is ALWAYS a good thing.  Many times it is, but not in every situation.  It seems to me that Assange and his followers believe it is.  I also don’t like his selective release of documents.  He seems to love the spotlight, rather than the truth.  Instead of releasing all 250k cables at once so that people will know the truth, he’s selectively releasing a few at a time.  Hardly the mark of transparency.

He’s also holding back on “large cache of bank documents” about a big investment bank.  Many people believe it is Bank of America and it’s share price fell last week because of the rumors.  Assange said:

Mr Assange said he had enough material ready to destroy the bosses of one of the world’s biggest banks…which it intends to release early next year. Shares in Bank of America recently fell after speculation spread that it was the target.

“We don’t want the bank to suffer unless it’s called for,” Mr Assange said. “But if its management is operating in a responsive way there will be resignations.”

Two things.  First, when did Assange become the arbiter of truth and justice?  Why is he judge, jury and executioner?  By not releasing these documents immediately and holding onto them, he’s just trying to put himself into the spotlight.  I’m not comfortable at all with this morphing role.  Assange’s stated goal is transparency and holding people in power accountable.  Now, he’s deciding their fate.

Second, he’s also basically blackmailed the bank into doing what he wants.  It’s a tactic he’s used multiple times. He’s told world governments that he would leak unredacted cables that could potentially put people in harm’s way if he was arrested.  Some would call that an insurance policy, others would call that terrorist.  Some have.  I’m not sure where I fall on this continuum, but he’s seeming more like a megalomaniacal Bond super villain every day.

Which brings me to my next point.  After Assange’s release, he lashed out at the Guardian for publishing leaked details from the police report detailing the rape allegations made against him by two women.  He said:

The decision to publish incriminating police files about him was “disgusting”. The Guardian had previously used him as its source for hundreds of leaked US embassy cables.  Mr Assange is understood to be particularly angry with a senior reporter at the paper and former friend for “selectively publishing” incriminating sections of the police report, although The Guardian made clear that the WikiLeaks founder was given several days to respond.

“The leak was clearly designed to undermine my bail application,” he said. “Someone in authority clearly intended to keep Julian in prison.”

Ok, so selectively leaking classified US government material and information to bring down a big bank is right, noble and for the greater good, but it’s disgusting when it happens to you?  Assange is not for transparency.  He’s only for it when it furthers his political or personal goals.  He has a political agenda and is using the guise of freedom of information to push it.

I actually believe that Wikileaks on balance has been a good thing.  I’m hoping that other similar sites start to “compete” with Assange’s Wikileaks.  It’s not good when someone has this much power, especially when it appears to me that he’s not all that stable.  Other competing websites will also damped government’s ability to go after individuals who publish information that the government does not like.

Competitors will also give Wikileaks supporters the ability to ditch Assange and his hypocritical, megalomaniacal behavior.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely, whether it’s big governments like the US or one guy with a ton of documents and a grudge.  Or as Kanye West puts it, “no one man should have all that power.”

I’m hoping this post will stir some discussion, so please tell me what you think.  I still haven’t made my mind up on many parts of the issues here, but as time goes on, my opinion of Assange the person gets lower every day.