Your entire history seems to be self-promotion, you're aware of the guidelines?
> Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the site should be for curiosity.
Perhaps you could submit something you're curious about, instead?
> Perhaps you could submit something you're curious about, instead?
Hi, author here. I write about what I'm curious about. I don't think it's promotion (both in spirit or letter) to share what I am curious about. I hate just linking to <openai blog / anthropic blog / karpathy twitter / tech crunch / engadget> without any commentary, since that has very low value-above-replacement.
I'm curious why you went into my posting history -- do you do that for every post?
[EDIT] to be clear this isnt written by AI, despite a few people seemingly tripped up by it. Check pangram if you doubt
> “I'm curious why you went into my posting history -- do you do that for every post?”
Someone did that for one of my comments recently. It was a strange feeling, having been raised in the ‘New Criticism’ tradition.
I guess they had doubts of my motives, and believed the “shortcut” to answer their concern was to survey my past work to look for more examples of the negative pattern they feared.
He assumes the lanes are thinner than they are. I am an introvert but love the idea of speaking at a conference. I am happy to help a struggling customer whon doesnt know what HTML is and work on a high performing lean team. I do have some hard nos though. A freedom sucking job (lots of travel to places I don't want to be) or 90h weeks is a no for me.
Great article, finally something worth reading fully on here. As a serial entrepreneur this definitely hits home and is something I've had to learn the hard way over my 17 years of entrepreneurship. Just because you come across a great opportunity and you have the skills and gusto to make it happen doesn't mean it's a good fit. If you don't give a shit about the idea/problem/market it doesn't matter if you are good at every aspect of the business, it will be a slog and you just won't care and will set yourself up to fail sooner or later.
this was a really good read and something I feel like I needed to hear as well. definitely has helped with how I should approach a project im working on - and I'm heavily on that introvert axis.. thanks for sharing.
to be honest i think life is about the thrill of seeking and achieving not the destination. i feel no matter what you do if it takes so much of your time and freedom you won't end up loving it.
I'm not trying to gatekeep or belittle the author, but there's something funny about this genre of articles that assert with utmost conviction what it takes to be successful in business. Of course, we all have opinions, but this piece doesn't say "here's what I think". It says, more or less, "here's how you succeed".
There are two things that are undoubtedly beneficial. The first one is a degree of unreasonable optimism or arrogance that pushes some people to try while everyone else is sitting in comfy armchairs, explaining why the idea is boring or can't work. The second is a financial safety net, so that you can try and try again.
As for everything else, it's reading tea leaves. There are folks who believe you need to be like Steve Jobs. There are people think you need to be like Elon Musk, or Bill Gates, or Dario Amodei, or Sergey Brin, or Warren Buffett. Good luck reconciling that.
> I'm not trying to gatekeep or belittle the author, but there's something funny about this genre of articles that assert with utmost conviction what it takes to be successful in business. Of course, we all have opinions, but this piece doesn't say "here's what I think". It says, more or less, "here's how you succeed".
A difficult lesson I’ve struggled to come to terms with is that it’s socially advantageous to appear confident that you’re right than it is to actually be right.
I don't know about the converse. But for an "if-then" statement, the contrapositive is logically equivalent. This statement (in if-then form) is "if you are not doing what you love, success does not matter". (I took the liberty of getting rid of the "may", so that everything is boolean, and so the law of contrapositives applies.)
The contrapositive is "If success matters, then you are doing what you love".
That... might be true. If I'm just working at a McJob, what do I care about the success of the business? I'm just there to do what they tell me, punch a clock, and cash paychecks. It pays for the parts of life that I do care about.
But if I care about the success of the business, then on some level, I love that business.
There are way too many straw man examples in this article that it distracts from the point the author is trying to make.
A former jazz pianist and Buddhist monk who used psychedelics, the Spanish-speaker trying to sell into a Chinese-speaking market, the introvert selling to enterprise buyers who love going to steakhouses and watching the Yankees from box seats, etc.
Interestingly, two words that aren't mentioned even once in this entire article: "co-founder" and "hire". Very few people singlehandedly build the type of businesses the author is talking about. They team up with and recruit other people to join them so that they can focus on what they do best and fill in the gaps with other people's talent.
> Interestingly, two words that aren't mentioned even once in this entire article: "co-founder" and "hire"
I actually debated including this!
But I ended up not doing so, because your co-founder and the people you hire will end up being more aligned to you (your values, judgements, whatever) than even the market you end up in, especially early on. And if they don't, that's an even bigger problem. Founder breakups are the #1 cause of startup death.
Also, agreed, all of this is out the window once you _already_ have the ability to hire a bunch of other people, but that rarely happens right out the gate, which is where most of my interest lies
> straw man examples
not straw men, all real but unnamed examples (also not really what a straw man is but whatever)
> But I ended up not doing so, because your co-founder and the people you hire will end up being more aligned to you (your values, judgements, whatever) than even the market you end up in, especially early on.
Your article comes off as very confident about the way things are, and your comment does too, but your perspective doesn't match what I've seen in over 30 years in this industry, which is that tons of companies are started by founders and early employees who compliment each other and fill in each other's gaps.
> all real but unnamed examples
Real Buddhist monks typically don't use mind-altering substances (it's a violation of the Fifth Precept), but in any case, following on my point above, your "unnamed examples" read like caricatures. Great for trying to make your blog post convincing; not great for building arguments that align to what's typical in the real world.
For me, success always matters because achieving success is what I love doing most.
Unfortunately, it's been over 10 years since I last experienced success... And that was minor success. Most people wouldn't even consider it success. I feel like I've had essentially zero control over my career since then.
Your entire history seems to be self-promotion, you're aware of the guidelines?
> Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the site should be for curiosity.
Perhaps you could submit something you're curious about, instead?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Perhaps you could submit something you're curious about, instead?
Hi, author here. I write about what I'm curious about. I don't think it's promotion (both in spirit or letter) to share what I am curious about. I hate just linking to <openai blog / anthropic blog / karpathy twitter / tech crunch / engadget> without any commentary, since that has very low value-above-replacement.
I'm curious why you went into my posting history -- do you do that for every post?
[EDIT] to be clear this isnt written by AI, despite a few people seemingly tripped up by it. Check pangram if you doubt
> “I'm curious why you went into my posting history -- do you do that for every post?”
Someone did that for one of my comments recently. It was a strange feeling, having been raised in the ‘New Criticism’ tradition.
I guess they had doubts of my motives, and believed the “shortcut” to answer their concern was to survey my past work to look for more examples of the negative pattern they feared.
Thank you for not using AI! Good article, +1.
> Hi, author here. I write about what I'm curious about.
“Linkedin poetry is my passion” lmao
And here's what people don't know: its not poetry, it's passion -- and that makes the difference.
Ever since I was a young bboy I dreamt of teaching Founders the Grindset that turns KPIs into K-P-Eyes
[flagged]
Your entire history seems to be kvetching
[flagged]
He assumes the lanes are thinner than they are. I am an introvert but love the idea of speaking at a conference. I am happy to help a struggling customer whon doesnt know what HTML is and work on a high performing lean team. I do have some hard nos though. A freedom sucking job (lots of travel to places I don't want to be) or 90h weeks is a no for me.
> A freedom sucking job (lots of travel to places I don't want to be) or 90h weeks is a no for me.
Actually I think you agree with the central premise of the article, even if the examples didn't resonate
I do agree yes
Great article, finally something worth reading fully on here. As a serial entrepreneur this definitely hits home and is something I've had to learn the hard way over my 17 years of entrepreneurship. Just because you come across a great opportunity and you have the skills and gusto to make it happen doesn't mean it's a good fit. If you don't give a shit about the idea/problem/market it doesn't matter if you are good at every aspect of the business, it will be a slog and you just won't care and will set yourself up to fail sooner or later.
this was a really good read and something I feel like I needed to hear as well. definitely has helped with how I should approach a project im working on - and I'm heavily on that introvert axis.. thanks for sharing.
to be honest i think life is about the thrill of seeking and achieving not the destination. i feel no matter what you do if it takes so much of your time and freedom you won't end up loving it.
I'm not trying to gatekeep or belittle the author, but there's something funny about this genre of articles that assert with utmost conviction what it takes to be successful in business. Of course, we all have opinions, but this piece doesn't say "here's what I think". It says, more or less, "here's how you succeed".
There are two things that are undoubtedly beneficial. The first one is a degree of unreasonable optimism or arrogance that pushes some people to try while everyone else is sitting in comfy armchairs, explaining why the idea is boring or can't work. The second is a financial safety net, so that you can try and try again.
As for everything else, it's reading tea leaves. There are folks who believe you need to be like Steve Jobs. There are people think you need to be like Elon Musk, or Bill Gates, or Dario Amodei, or Sergey Brin, or Warren Buffett. Good luck reconciling that.
> I'm not trying to gatekeep or belittle the author, but there's something funny about this genre of articles that assert with utmost conviction what it takes to be successful in business. Of course, we all have opinions, but this piece doesn't say "here's what I think". It says, more or less, "here's how you succeed".
A difficult lesson I’ve struggled to come to terms with is that it’s socially advantageous to appear confident that you’re right than it is to actually be right.
Hell yeah. Linkedin (with AI assisted slop) is full of "Here's the thing:" overconfident and low depth claptrap.
And Substack to that list too.
Success is not a defined term.
Article is about economic/business success which is defined in terms of revenue/profits, i.e. numbers going up & to the right.
But when it's tangled with emotional/personal stuff such as love. It gets really messy.
Watch this: https://youtu.be/i4gvIeA3RcI?si=0VWnkXtih-DXfsHl , this line of thinking that I have to find my calling is not good.
Is the converse also true?
I don't know about the converse. But for an "if-then" statement, the contrapositive is logically equivalent. This statement (in if-then form) is "if you are not doing what you love, success does not matter". (I took the liberty of getting rid of the "may", so that everything is boolean, and so the law of contrapositives applies.)
The contrapositive is "If success matters, then you are doing what you love".
That... might be true. If I'm just working at a McJob, what do I care about the success of the business? I'm just there to do what they tell me, punch a clock, and cash paychecks. It pays for the parts of life that I do care about.
But if I care about the success of the business, then on some level, I love that business.
There are way too many straw man examples in this article that it distracts from the point the author is trying to make.
A former jazz pianist and Buddhist monk who used psychedelics, the Spanish-speaker trying to sell into a Chinese-speaking market, the introvert selling to enterprise buyers who love going to steakhouses and watching the Yankees from box seats, etc.
Interestingly, two words that aren't mentioned even once in this entire article: "co-founder" and "hire". Very few people singlehandedly build the type of businesses the author is talking about. They team up with and recruit other people to join them so that they can focus on what they do best and fill in the gaps with other people's talent.
> Interestingly, two words that aren't mentioned even once in this entire article: "co-founder" and "hire"
I actually debated including this!
But I ended up not doing so, because your co-founder and the people you hire will end up being more aligned to you (your values, judgements, whatever) than even the market you end up in, especially early on. And if they don't, that's an even bigger problem. Founder breakups are the #1 cause of startup death.
Also, agreed, all of this is out the window once you _already_ have the ability to hire a bunch of other people, but that rarely happens right out the gate, which is where most of my interest lies
> straw man examples
not straw men, all real but unnamed examples (also not really what a straw man is but whatever)
> But I ended up not doing so, because your co-founder and the people you hire will end up being more aligned to you (your values, judgements, whatever) than even the market you end up in, especially early on.
Your article comes off as very confident about the way things are, and your comment does too, but your perspective doesn't match what I've seen in over 30 years in this industry, which is that tons of companies are started by founders and early employees who compliment each other and fill in each other's gaps.
> all real but unnamed examples
Real Buddhist monks typically don't use mind-altering substances (it's a violation of the Fifth Precept), but in any case, following on my point above, your "unnamed examples" read like caricatures. Great for trying to make your blog post convincing; not great for building arguments that align to what's typical in the real world.
Next time I'll hedge more
Damn. I'm trying to do a startup and have been asking myself some questions and this really hits. Thanks!
For me, success always matters because achieving success is what I love doing most.
Unfortunately, it's been over 10 years since I last experienced success... And that was minor success. Most people wouldn't even consider it success. I feel like I've had essentially zero control over my career since then.