Sam Hinkie

You're going to leave a lot of people with a sort of bad taste in their mouth about how that went.

How portable do you think that concept is?

Certainly in the NBA, it seems like

or I guess in sports in general, the smaller the team, the more that power law thing exists, where if you have LeBron, I don't know how many straight years his team, if he hasn't been injured, has been to the finals now.

I think it's like 10.

No kidding, people are power laws.

Like if you have the best guy, you're just always in the mix.

Maybe that's less true in football or soccer or something like this.

And I think of startups where certainly early on, it's a small team, but it gets very, very big.

Do you think that because of the team size and just the amount of randomness in a big, more complicated system than a five-on-five game, that that parallel thing is less true than it is in sports?

And if as a result, things like the market you're entering matter as much or more as the founders?

For sure, I think the market you're entering and the sort of business you're going after really matters.

But even for scaling companies, I think many of your people propagate over time.

And so they can propagate with increasingly high trajectories or with increasingly...

Poor trajectories where if you're constantly hiring brother-in-laws all the way down, then it's like, yeah, this thing is going to be a mess quickly.

If instead you're saying we have an ever higher bar of recruiting where we're trying to narrow our confidence interval on these people over and over and over and spend an increasing amount of our time on who gets in the boat with us.

I think it's relative to sort of the market you're in.

I think it's relatively unlimited.

I do think it propagate over a long period of time and end up compounding.

You better be careful about the kinds of people you let in early because they will influence your hiring processes heavily from then on.