I love this comment because if you flip the article like see below, the concept remains the same and yet I am eased into the premise with "obvious facts" I already believe. Plus, inverting like this focuses on what we want to do to survive versus the negativity of what causes failure.

> Startups have a notorious failure rate – some estimates say 9 out of 10 startups eventually fail. Yet, contrary to what many first-time founders expect, startups rarely fail because a giant competitor swoops in or because of some external “homicide.” Instead, most startups die by “suicide,” meaning their demise is self-inflicted by internal issues. As YC founder Paul Graham once noted, “Startups are more likely to die from suicide than homicide.” In my experience building two startups, I’ve seen that the biggest threats usually come from within the company’s own walls, not from the outside world.

Updated by me:

Startups have an incredibly small survival rate. One in ten startups survives. The ones that survive don't survive simply because a giant competitor didn't kill it or because some external affliction didn't cause it to fail. Counterintuitively, the startups that survived didn't actively try to kill themselves by internal issues.(The rest I can copy paste) As YC founder Paul Graham once noted, “Startups are more likely to die from suicide than homicide.” In my experience building two startups, I’ve seen that the biggest threats usually come from within the company’s own walls, not from the outside world.

It also provides literally no data to back up the assertions.

Just more bare assertions.

You could easily write the exact opposite article (ie “exactly as people believe, most startups run out of money well before they give up internally” or whatever) and it would sound exactly as true

“Edit: actually the more i go through it, it sounds like chatgpt prose, especially by the end.”

I noticed that too. 100% mostly written by AI.