How to Do Great Work(paulgraham.com)
paulgraham.com
How to Do Great Work
http://paulgraham.com/greatwork.html
463 comments
Just keep doing whatever you want and maybe this work will be the springboard to a new discovery where copyright isn't limiting.
I say following your passion can never go wrong, (well ,sometimes, heh)
I say following your passion can never go wrong, (well ,sometimes, heh)
No doubt I have followed this advice to a Tee (given to me at weighing graduate school or a commercial world) 32 years later I have whittled the perputal timeline from 2-5 years to 6 weeks. Some days I even think I’m doing it.
Is there a problem if you don’t use the trademarked name Scrabble or any of their art? It’s my understanding that you can’t protect a game mechanic. Is that inaccurate?
You seem passionate about it, so you should definitely keep going
> Hasbro is litigious
> I’m not going to charge without getting sue
I don't think this is a thing ? There's this website which is a web Catan game ( https://colonist.io/ ) which is at least as niche as Scrabble, and they seem to be doing well
> Hasbro is litigious
> I’m not going to charge without getting sue
I don't think this is a thing ? There's this website which is a web Catan game ( https://colonist.io/ ) which is at least as niche as Scrabble, and they seem to be doing well
I remember looking this up before, and game rule sets are not protected in USA. You can't make some game rules and say that other people can't make that game. The things that are protected are the things that go along with the game, like if you use any trademark name in the game or if you use any protected media like if it's a card game then you can't use the same card art. My understanding is that you can make a game with the same rules as scrabble and not call it scrabble or use their art and you are allowed to do it.
Edit: this is getting upvoted so maybe at this point I should say I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice lol
Edit: this is getting upvoted so maybe at this point I should say I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice lol
In theory. In practice, depends what judge you pull, and you'd better have deep pockets for legal fights.
My friends made a Tetris-like game (under a different name, with unrelated art, just broadly similar rules) and were sued out of existence by The Tetris Company. Even though they were legally in the clear according to theoretical analysis, the judge took a brief look and decided "this seems like it should be a violation" and summarily decided in the Tetris Company's favor, without even engaging with any of the issues involved. Their pro-bono lawyers decided they didn't have the resources to mount an appeal, so that was the end of that.
My friends made a Tetris-like game (under a different name, with unrelated art, just broadly similar rules) and were sued out of existence by The Tetris Company. Even though they were legally in the clear according to theoretical analysis, the judge took a brief look and decided "this seems like it should be a violation" and summarily decided in the Tetris Company's favor, without even engaging with any of the issues involved. Their pro-bono lawyers decided they didn't have the resources to mount an appeal, so that was the end of that.
An interesting discussion from 2019: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19533219
Tetris Holdings, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc. held that the tetrominoes are "expression; they are not part of the ideas, rules, or functions of the game," which certainly seems open to dispute, but I could just as easily imagine the same standard being applied to letter tiles with a score value in the corner.
So yeah, unless you have a few spare million to get this precedent overturned, it's probably not worth it.
Tetris Holdings, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc. held that the tetrominoes are "expression; they are not part of the ideas, rules, or functions of the game," which certainly seems open to dispute, but I could just as easily imagine the same standard being applied to letter tiles with a score value in the corner.
So yeah, unless you have a few spare million to get this precedent overturned, it's probably not worth it.
Wait what? That’s not expression. Without the blocks being the shapes they are there wouldn’t be a (viable) game, so it’s clearly part of the rules.
Whether the blocks look like jelly or concrete is expression. Or even the exact graphics they use in Tetris.
But the fact there’s blocks in preconfigured shapes (and what those shapes are) is game rules. There’s only so many ways you can stick four blocks together…
Whether the blocks look like jelly or concrete is expression. Or even the exact graphics they use in Tetris.
But the fact there’s blocks in preconfigured shapes (and what those shapes are) is game rules. There’s only so many ways you can stick four blocks together…
Yeah, the judge's gut-feel decision that using tetrominoes is not part of the functional rules of the game seemed absurd to me. But hey, when you are the judge you can more or less decide however you want, and the only one who can say otherwise is the next appellate court.
Disclaimer: I made the "art" for Xio's game (i.e. I picked the colors and drew all the tiles and menu buttons etc. on my laptop in photoshop) as a favor to my friends, so am not an unbiased reporter. As a reward I got to sit through a long deposition. :-)
Disclaimer: I made the "art" for Xio's game (i.e. I picked the colors and drew all the tiles and menu buttons etc. on my laptop in photoshop) as a favor to my friends, so am not an unbiased reporter. As a reward I got to sit through a long deposition. :-)
[deleted]
Sounds like words with friends.
Frankly not sure what you want. You want money but also want to keep things open source and free. I think you need to take a hard look at your wants and how they map to the real world.
I just want enough to be able to work on it as a full time thing.
Maybe hasbro wants to hire you?
Have you got a Patreon?
@cdelsolar, definitely consider Patreon. I mentioned in this comment [1] recently about how so many coders are doing exactly what you wanna be doing, working on awesome projects full time, funded by people who want to see you succeed and to get the opportunity to get a behind the scenes glimpse of how you work, get updates about new things you're working on before anyone else, and getting access to beta testing and new features first.
I've worked with Scrabble players in the past on a personal project [2] and can say this is absolutely the kind of thing they'd go for. I had never heard of woogles.io either and will be passing the link on to them as well.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=36525089
[2] https://github.com/v64/fiend
I've worked with Scrabble players in the past on a personal project [2] and can say this is absolutely the kind of thing they'd go for. I had never heard of woogles.io either and will be passing the link on to them as well.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=36525089
[2] https://github.com/v64/fiend
We have a Patreon for Woogles, we make on the order of $100 a month from it. Mostly to keep our servers running along with other random donations. Not sure if we need to do more “fundraising”.
That's legit and a sign that you're on the right track. I was an early user of lichess when it was getting started and they were always a better experience than either chess.com or internet chess club, it was just a matter of convincing the best players to play there. Hope things grow and I'll do my best to convince my friends who play to give the site a shot :)
Good effort, but ISC is still better. Sorry not sorry.
Nice trolling :) ISC still saves all passwords in plain text (!), they’re unchangeable, and probably running a very ancient and vulnerable version of Java. Apparently someone on the FB group claimed their password which they only use for that site was found in a data breach.
Oh yeah and you can change your tiles at will and draw RETINAS 7 times in a row if you want :)
Oh yeah and you can change your tiles at will and draw RETINAS 7 times in a row if you want :)
You could perhaps pivot someday into your own original IP (i.e. create a word/letter based game that doesn't infringe a corporations IP).
I was rated around 1600 about 15 years ago and just discovered Woogles through Mack Meller’s Mack vs. Machine series on YouTube. I definitely won’t study again, but for a quick game against a bot it’s quite fun!
I don’t think that great work and financial success are necessarily related; in fact, in many historical cases they were not. For me personally, I always have special and long-term projects on the side (that may or may not lead to “great work”), while doing more boring work in my bread-and-butter job. I guess I need some sort of independence from financial or social pressure when I want to do what I am passionate about, even if it means that I am not able to go “all in”. Otherwise it would only stress me out and in the worst case, I would lose interest or drift away from my original intentions to satisfy a customer or whoever might give me money.
So many very valuable or important things are just not profitable, but that doesn’t mean they should not be pursued.
So many very valuable or important things are just not profitable, but that doesn’t mean they should not be pursued.
I think they're related, but it doesn't go both ways. Self-made financial success almost always takes great work, although great work does not necessarily lead to financial success even when the work is clearly great.
Maybe we disagree on what constitutes self-made financial success, but it seems to me that most wealthy people have not done great work at all. It's entirely possible, and fairly common, to become financially independent by grinding away at mediocrity or even actively being shitty.
Oh no, I agree with you there. Most wealthy people are not self-made, which supports your point. Maybe that's where the sleight of hand occurs -- many if not all wealthy people will pass it off as being self-made, when only a small fraction of those instances are the case. But I do think you will see hard work playing a large role in that fraction of cases.
No, I really think you're mistaking this. Some of the easiest ways to become wealthy - or let's say "financially independent", because it's a more clear-cut term - are doing useful and well-compensated work, that is definitely not "great work" in the essay's sense. Think dentists and most doctors and lawyers, and also lots of different kinds of "businesspeople", including software engineers at big successful companies. Think about the people you see on a private golf course that they have a house next to; those people are all wealthy, some of them inherited it, sure, but many of them just plugged away at lucrative jobs and saved and invested well. That's not what the essay is talking about. It is a much easier way to achieve financial success than attempting to do "great work" in the essay's sense.
Personally I have had a tendency to waffle back and forth between the ambition to "great work" and the ambition (and at times, necessity) to do lucrative work. And for me, thus far, the two things have been almost entirely negatively correlated; I have given up the lucrative path to seek something I hope will be "great", or given up the "great work" path to seek something I know will be lucrative.
To bring this back into the lens of the article, I do think that for people who are not already financially independent, this can / should / is just one more constraint in the search through this space of "what should I work on". Some "great work" is lucrative while a lot is not. Financially independent people have the privilege to choose freely among the two kinds, while the rest of us have to focus on the lucrative kind to at least some degree.
Personally I have had a tendency to waffle back and forth between the ambition to "great work" and the ambition (and at times, necessity) to do lucrative work. And for me, thus far, the two things have been almost entirely negatively correlated; I have given up the lucrative path to seek something I hope will be "great", or given up the "great work" path to seek something I know will be lucrative.
To bring this back into the lens of the article, I do think that for people who are not already financially independent, this can / should / is just one more constraint in the search through this space of "what should I work on". Some "great work" is lucrative while a lot is not. Financially independent people have the privilege to choose freely among the two kinds, while the rest of us have to focus on the lucrative kind to at least some degree.
If anything, I view that as a slight deficiency and bias of the essay's sense. Here's how I'd phrase it based on what's worked for me, which is "Learn to fall in love with expensive, poorly-solved problems." Not all expensive poorly-solved problems are poorly-solved, but for the ones that are, focusing your curiosity on them -- why they are expensive, why they are poorly-solved, what state of the art looks like, how it could be improved -- that is a surefire way, in my view, towards doing great work.
Now, that may not be considered great work by the essay. But I might read the essay with my assumption around its editorialization -- which is that it's to some degree an attempt to describe "here's what I'd like to invest in." I'll bet you today (and especially in the future) that if I tested the author's revealed preference about investing in "my" thesis of great work, while our stated preferences might differ, our revealed preferences would align.
Caveat that this is this is all conjecture given that I've never directly interacted with YC's investment thesis.
Now, that may not be considered great work by the essay. But I might read the essay with my assumption around its editorialization -- which is that it's to some degree an attempt to describe "here's what I'd like to invest in." I'll bet you today (and especially in the future) that if I tested the author's revealed preference about investing in "my" thesis of great work, while our stated preferences might differ, our revealed preferences would align.
Caveat that this is this is all conjecture given that I've never directly interacted with YC's investment thesis.
Yeah we're sort of just debating the implied definition of something left purposefully vague, but I don't read this particular essay as an investment thesis thing at all. His motivating examples are pretty much all musicians and theoreticians there's no investing in those things. To some extent those examples are metaphorical of course, and I'm certain he is thinking of at least some entrepreneurs as having done "great work". But I still take the essay more at face value that it isn't primarily focused on the kind of wildly lucrative "great work" that makes a good investment.
I can think of many examples of mediocre work resulting in self made financial success.
> I don’t think that great work and financial success are necessarily related
This is an important thing to know. An even broader point is that no matter what you do you can't control how the world will receive your work. You may do work that's considered great long after you're dead. You may do work that is tragically overlooked because something bigger happens to be going on right now.
That's why I think the advice to follow your interests is solid. At least that way you'll guarantee doing something interesting even if you can't guarantee doing something great.
This is an important thing to know. An even broader point is that no matter what you do you can't control how the world will receive your work. You may do work that's considered great long after you're dead. You may do work that is tragically overlooked because something bigger happens to be going on right now.
That's why I think the advice to follow your interests is solid. At least that way you'll guarantee doing something interesting even if you can't guarantee doing something great.
Are you obsessed with scrabble… or could that obsession be broadened to “word games” including wordle, crosswords, other word games (boggle?). Maybe time to make your own original game? That may get you further away
from hasbro.
In the old days we used to call those hobbies.
As I've gotten older, I believe more and more that having a desire for great work has more negatives than it does positives. This post really demonstrates why I believe this – mainly because PG doesn't touch at all on why someone would want to do great work while romanticizing how great it is to have that desire.
I don't think the question that ambitious people should be asking themselves is "what is work that I can do that will be great?" but something more akin to "what is work that I will find fulfilling?" Why do you want your work to be great? Do you think that the work being perceived as "great" is fulfilling in and of itself? What are you trying to prove through this work, and whom are you trying to prove it to? These are important questions to ask yourself because, otherwise, you're going to end up getting burnt out and wondering what all of your effort was really for.
A personal anecdote: when I was younger, I wanted to be great at piano. I played it since I was very young and I spent many hours playing it through my teens. I competed against others at music festivals with moderate success, and I wanted to continue doing great work with it. But this environment put me in a terrible headspace. I would frequently have angry outbursts when I made minor mistakes while practicing. If not anger, I'd chastise myself to the point of crying (I firmly believe this is what gave me low self-esteem through my college years). When someone would tell me to take a break given my emotional state, I'd firmly say no and go back to practicing because... why would I stop? The best piano players practice for hours a day non-stop. I'd spent so many hours practicing and I was actually pretty good. I wouldn't be able to do great work if I were to take a break.
It made me a competitive asshole, a sore loser, and a depressed individual.
Ambition is still an admirable trait to have because, among other things, it demonstrates that you have curiosity and a love for life. But point I'm trying to make is that being ambitious for great work simply because you want to do great work is not a healthy way to do your work. You need to have a deeper reason for why you've chosen the work that you do, and you shouldn't fall for the romanticism that these sorts of essays put forth.
The work that you do will be great work if you have a reason for doing it other than "I want to do something great."
I don't think the question that ambitious people should be asking themselves is "what is work that I can do that will be great?" but something more akin to "what is work that I will find fulfilling?" Why do you want your work to be great? Do you think that the work being perceived as "great" is fulfilling in and of itself? What are you trying to prove through this work, and whom are you trying to prove it to? These are important questions to ask yourself because, otherwise, you're going to end up getting burnt out and wondering what all of your effort was really for.
A personal anecdote: when I was younger, I wanted to be great at piano. I played it since I was very young and I spent many hours playing it through my teens. I competed against others at music festivals with moderate success, and I wanted to continue doing great work with it. But this environment put me in a terrible headspace. I would frequently have angry outbursts when I made minor mistakes while practicing. If not anger, I'd chastise myself to the point of crying (I firmly believe this is what gave me low self-esteem through my college years). When someone would tell me to take a break given my emotional state, I'd firmly say no and go back to practicing because... why would I stop? The best piano players practice for hours a day non-stop. I'd spent so many hours practicing and I was actually pretty good. I wouldn't be able to do great work if I were to take a break.
It made me a competitive asshole, a sore loser, and a depressed individual.
Ambition is still an admirable trait to have because, among other things, it demonstrates that you have curiosity and a love for life. But point I'm trying to make is that being ambitious for great work simply because you want to do great work is not a healthy way to do your work. You need to have a deeper reason for why you've chosen the work that you do, and you shouldn't fall for the romanticism that these sorts of essays put forth.
The work that you do will be great work if you have a reason for doing it other than "I want to do something great."
I've been studying a lot of Buddhism as of late. One thing it has taught me in the Middle Way. In short, it means do nothing in excess, which includes doing nothing at all.
This balanced view leads to me to believe you, Paul, and "hustle culture" that's all over YouTube are both right and wrong. I've come to live by a simple system...
Try to do fulfilling work that's meaningful to future generations, whilst also putting back into society as much positive value as you can versus what you consume.
So far, this has led me to the model of, "Learn a skill, give a skill". The term "give" can be exchanged for "sell" depending on the receiver. This has led me to learn complex skills and problem solving (consuming from society), and then giving back in the form of books, videos, mentoring, and more (putting back) so that others can learn from my experience.
At the end of the day though, who really knows? :-)
This balanced view leads to me to believe you, Paul, and "hustle culture" that's all over YouTube are both right and wrong. I've come to live by a simple system...
Try to do fulfilling work that's meaningful to future generations, whilst also putting back into society as much positive value as you can versus what you consume.
So far, this has led me to the model of, "Learn a skill, give a skill". The term "give" can be exchanged for "sell" depending on the receiver. This has led me to learn complex skills and problem solving (consuming from society), and then giving back in the form of books, videos, mentoring, and more (putting back) so that others can learn from my experience.
At the end of the day though, who really knows? :-)
You speak mostly of not getting attached. Which is mostly a method not to build negative karma in Buddhism and build positive karma. But positive karma is not a goal in itself in Buddhism, realization is.
The Madhyamaka way, translated to the great middle way, mostly refers to combining freedom & meaning from emptiness. Meaning things are neither real, nor or they an illusion. Therefore the middle.
This is because understanding emptiness often leads to nihilism: "nothing really matters". The opposite seeing things as real, instead of acknowledging everything is changing, often leads to suffering: if laptop breaks, relationships end etc. Both are true and both are false.
The goal of madhymaka is to explain middle way between those and also practical how that leads to freedom, joy and meaning in every moment of life.
In the end the goal of Buddhism is not to change outer conditions but to get to a state were hapiness is experienced regardless of outer experiences.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka
The Madhyamaka way, translated to the great middle way, mostly refers to combining freedom & meaning from emptiness. Meaning things are neither real, nor or they an illusion. Therefore the middle.
This is because understanding emptiness often leads to nihilism: "nothing really matters". The opposite seeing things as real, instead of acknowledging everything is changing, often leads to suffering: if laptop breaks, relationships end etc. Both are true and both are false.
The goal of madhymaka is to explain middle way between those and also practical how that leads to freedom, joy and meaning in every moment of life.
In the end the goal of Buddhism is not to change outer conditions but to get to a state were hapiness is experienced regardless of outer experiences.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka
Interesting that Aristotle's Ethics also speaks about this. Good and bad are not at the ends of a scale, but good is in the middle, and bad either side. From what I understand it, excess of anything, even something normally regarded as "good" would result in bad things. Yea, I'm not very eloquent here, but you get the idea
> In the end the goal of Buddhism is not to change outer conditions but to get to a state were hapiness is experienced regardless of outer experiences.
I would argue not trying to change the outer conditions is an extreme view, which is a notion rejected in Buddhism ;-)
Some things can be changed, like keeping your environment clean. You can, of course, simply find happiness regardless of the state it's in - clean or filthy - but you're kidding yourself, and only yourself, if you believe you won't be happier if it is clean(er). Therefore, you can find (more) happiness by changing the environment you're _but_ also excepting that it will get dirty again, requiring you to clean it again.
All this being said, neither of us is right or wrong. That's sort of the point.
I would argue not trying to change the outer conditions is an extreme view, which is a notion rejected in Buddhism ;-)
Some things can be changed, like keeping your environment clean. You can, of course, simply find happiness regardless of the state it's in - clean or filthy - but you're kidding yourself, and only yourself, if you believe you won't be happier if it is clean(er). Therefore, you can find (more) happiness by changing the environment you're _but_ also excepting that it will get dirty again, requiring you to clean it again.
All this being said, neither of us is right or wrong. That's sort of the point.
Reading this, I had an epiphany just now.
What you’ve shared is essentially Dharma. Or giving back from a sense of duty, or as a matter of principle.
Interestingly, Karma preaches: if you give to those in need, you will receive in return when you’re in need.
Although the motivations are different in both teachings (Buddhism vs. Hinduism, with carrot vs. stick if you will), they have the same effect - to reach an equilibrium in society.
Edited: For clarity
What you’ve shared is essentially Dharma. Or giving back from a sense of duty, or as a matter of principle.
Interestingly, Karma preaches: if you give to those in need, you will receive in return when you’re in need.
Although the motivations are different in both teachings (Buddhism vs. Hinduism, with carrot vs. stick if you will), they have the same effect - to reach an equilibrium in society.
Edited: For clarity
That's right. For me, it's essentially living a Bodhisattva life.
I see this simple version of Karma talked about quite often in the general public and it's pretty far from my understanding of Karma in Buddhism.
Karma is a consequence of Dependent Origination - basically that things arise dependent on other things, and there is nothing that's outside of the law of cause and effet (hence no eternal, unchanging, eternally happy Self, which is the type of Self, or soul/atta(pali)/atman(sanskrit) the Buddha was talking about).
Karma means your intentional thoughts and actions all have consequences.
If you give to those in need, that ripples through the world and yeah, you're more likely to get good things because you're building a good life. There's no need for a "cosmic justice" that will weigh what you did and give you the exact same amount when you're in a similar situation. You have more probability of receiving help (cause you've got friends now), but you might still be unlucky and don't receive any help.
That's on the material level but it goes further than that - by acting and thinking wholesomely, less based on your own craving and delusion, you're cultivating a mind that's less likely to act based on craving and delusion. It's simple cause and effect again, and it depends much less on external conditions since it's internal.
(Now the word Karma is used differently in different tradition, so the general idea of "cosmic retribution" might be what it refers too in some of those. When I understood more this version of Karma it made a whole lot more sense, so I'm sharing that here.)
I found this article by Culadasa really enlightening on the topic: https://s3.amazonaws.com/dharmatreasure/20130322--what-the-b...
Karma is a consequence of Dependent Origination - basically that things arise dependent on other things, and there is nothing that's outside of the law of cause and effet (hence no eternal, unchanging, eternally happy Self, which is the type of Self, or soul/atta(pali)/atman(sanskrit) the Buddha was talking about).
Karma means your intentional thoughts and actions all have consequences.
If you give to those in need, that ripples through the world and yeah, you're more likely to get good things because you're building a good life. There's no need for a "cosmic justice" that will weigh what you did and give you the exact same amount when you're in a similar situation. You have more probability of receiving help (cause you've got friends now), but you might still be unlucky and don't receive any help.
That's on the material level but it goes further than that - by acting and thinking wholesomely, less based on your own craving and delusion, you're cultivating a mind that's less likely to act based on craving and delusion. It's simple cause and effect again, and it depends much less on external conditions since it's internal.
(Now the word Karma is used differently in different tradition, so the general idea of "cosmic retribution" might be what it refers too in some of those. When I understood more this version of Karma it made a whole lot more sense, so I'm sharing that here.)
I found this article by Culadasa really enlightening on the topic: https://s3.amazonaws.com/dharmatreasure/20130322--what-the-b...
I agree with the sentiment and that of grandparent. But I take issue with the notion of fulfillment. I think we ought to strive to do things that drain us. You can't fulfill yourself continuously. You can't learn if your head is full. We have this 'my heart if full' turn of phrase that makes the next sentence confusing, but you can't love if your heart is full (of things you hold on to).
Same thing with trying to leave a legacy, or trying to make an impact. If you decide some thing or another is a goal, with the best altruistic reasoning, you're still first choosing something to hold on to, and then putting effort into attaching more and more to that.
We need to perform life because we are living beings. We go through the acts of nourishment and socialization because we are at that stage, being people on Earth. But seeking any personally chosen result or goal is self delusion. Letting go of what I think is the right thing, and pouring myself into my life, as I interact with others and gain opportunities to listen to them, work alongside them, decide together what to do and do it. I am alive because the universe pours into me. I need to pour forth. That's how things flow through their natural progression.
Same thing with trying to leave a legacy, or trying to make an impact. If you decide some thing or another is a goal, with the best altruistic reasoning, you're still first choosing something to hold on to, and then putting effort into attaching more and more to that.
We need to perform life because we are living beings. We go through the acts of nourishment and socialization because we are at that stage, being people on Earth. But seeking any personally chosen result or goal is self delusion. Letting go of what I think is the right thing, and pouring myself into my life, as I interact with others and gain opportunities to listen to them, work alongside them, decide together what to do and do it. I am alive because the universe pours into me. I need to pour forth. That's how things flow through their natural progression.
Completely agreed. Media excessively romanticizes compulsive workers.
Not to mention to the 5am hustle. Only people who get up at 5am and smash out their book for the first three hours of the day, before starting work, are winners... /s
> Develop a habit of working on your own projects.
work shouldn't always imply working for your employer. Without that implication I'm ok with romanticising a compulsive worker, creating something is an ambition we should all strive for
work shouldn't always imply working for your employer. Without that implication I'm ok with romanticising a compulsive worker, creating something is an ambition we should all strive for
I have also followed a similar trajectory to you. My early 20's I wanted to do something 'great'. But my ambition was what Paul identified in this post as the type that precedes experience. As a result, I became restless, agitated if I thought I wasn't pursuing the right things, competitive.
That is slowly disappearing from me, for the better. Now I just try to focus on doing things as well as I can. I don't worry about what to do, because really that will flow from your intuition. Just do what you want to do. Maybe it'll be great, maybe not, but you can't force greatness.
That is slowly disappearing from me, for the better. Now I just try to focus on doing things as well as I can. I don't worry about what to do, because really that will flow from your intuition. Just do what you want to do. Maybe it'll be great, maybe not, but you can't force greatness.
I wonder if you might have found it more fulfilling if you had received some psychological help with all the harshness on yourself.
As somebody who has struggled with similar issues, oftentimes the psychological help you need is to de-emphasize the ambition and success. You have to act against the expectation and dreams of greatness, and instead focus on your present state and appreciating that. It's not impossible to do great work and be happy, but it's very easy to let your dreams consume you.
I agree. To your point, I feel the most useful questions we ought to ask are the ones that push us to understand our deepest selves: the desires, insecurities, fears that dictate why we do what we do.
Without that deeper understanding, we're more easily trapped into following someone else's / the collective culture's programming of our minds - which likely doesn't prioritize our own individual well-being.
And ofc this is a lifelong journey. I can't imagine waking up anytime soon thinking I understand what happens in the deepest recesses of my mind, but without having a reasonable sense of the deeper motivations, it's easy to read this essay by PG and feel a craving to "do great work" without understanding why or the impact this craving can have on your wellbeing.
Without that deeper understanding, we're more easily trapped into following someone else's / the collective culture's programming of our minds - which likely doesn't prioritize our own individual well-being.
And ofc this is a lifelong journey. I can't imagine waking up anytime soon thinking I understand what happens in the deepest recesses of my mind, but without having a reasonable sense of the deeper motivations, it's easy to read this essay by PG and feel a craving to "do great work" without understanding why or the impact this craving can have on your wellbeing.
It is lonely doing hard work without some attaboys. Being some famous techie that people refer to you in droves by only your first name, or publishing a highly referenced paper, or exiting a startup with millions are great attaboys. But you sort of need to risk working hard and getting no cash and no attaboys. I think passion (that dirty word!) is needed to drive you to do the moonshot thing.
I often think we are a bee colony. We need lots of people trying ambitious stuff but few will get that attaboy kick. We need failures (otherwise everyone is not ambitious enough).
I often think we are a bee colony. We need lots of people trying ambitious stuff but few will get that attaboy kick. We need failures (otherwise everyone is not ambitious enough).
I think "passion" just isn't the best word for it. I much prefer (and relate to) the use of "curiosity" instead in this essay.
If great people didn't exist we are all doomed
Not all people who do great work are great people. In fact, I suspect a negative correlation.
For a current example, see Elon Musk. Even here on a relatively level-headed hacking forum, any discussion of Musk will turn into poo-flinging between fanboys that worship him and haters who deny that success of his companies has anything to do with him.
> The work that you do will be great work if you have a reason for doing it other than "I want to do something great."
I've always had an issue with the word "great". Who defines greatness? How will I know that I've achieved greatness in whatever work I'm doing at any particular time.
For work, I know when my work is great because co-workers and managers praise it: "nice fix", "some really good insights here", etc.
Beyond work - there's a whole bunch of egos and social politics that get tangled into the whole "what is great" thing:
- "Great poem"? Depends entirely on who is on the competition judging panel or what mood the magazine editor is in when they read your submission.
- "Great novel"? You've got to get it published first before the reviewers can cast their judgments, and to get it published you need to convince people that this is a great novel for the specific reason that it will make them some money when they publish it.
- "Great JS library"? People need to know it exists - and then how do you measure its greatness? In my view great DevEx and minimal issues raised in GitHub are just as important (if not more important) than the elegance and speed of the code itself.
Nowadays I judge the greatness of my varied passion projects by how well they please me. I am a harsh judge of myself: the days when I manage to draft a poem that leaves me stunned with wonder when I review it a few weeks later (for all poems should be left to ferment for a few weeks before review) is how I measure greatness. It's a rare occurence, but wondrous when it happens!
I've always had an issue with the word "great". Who defines greatness? How will I know that I've achieved greatness in whatever work I'm doing at any particular time.
For work, I know when my work is great because co-workers and managers praise it: "nice fix", "some really good insights here", etc.
Beyond work - there's a whole bunch of egos and social politics that get tangled into the whole "what is great" thing:
- "Great poem"? Depends entirely on who is on the competition judging panel or what mood the magazine editor is in when they read your submission.
- "Great novel"? You've got to get it published first before the reviewers can cast their judgments, and to get it published you need to convince people that this is a great novel for the specific reason that it will make them some money when they publish it.
- "Great JS library"? People need to know it exists - and then how do you measure its greatness? In my view great DevEx and minimal issues raised in GitHub are just as important (if not more important) than the elegance and speed of the code itself.
Nowadays I judge the greatness of my varied passion projects by how well they please me. I am a harsh judge of myself: the days when I manage to draft a poem that leaves me stunned with wonder when I review it a few weeks later (for all poems should be left to ferment for a few weeks before review) is how I measure greatness. It's a rare occurence, but wondrous when it happens!
> For work, I know when my work is great because co-workers and managers praise it: "nice fix", "some really good insights here", etc.
They only said nice and good though not great. I would say if your CEO came down and said that's awesome, then it's great work. (for you)
As for me, I don't think too much about word semantics. No advice can be given or taken if you take each word apart. We will just keep arguing about details and miss the point.
They only said nice and good though not great. I would say if your CEO came down and said that's awesome, then it's great work. (for you)
As for me, I don't think too much about word semantics. No advice can be given or taken if you take each word apart. We will just keep arguing about details and miss the point.
It depends how much you value/respect your co-workers. In a high level team “good insight” can mean “great work”. I am not saying you disagree with this, but you may have made assumptions about the parent’s team and his relation to it. Conversely, a “great work” from a CEO can mean nothing to a person
Thanks for zooming out and sharing these questions that challenge pg’s assumption from the beginning. I felt caught in the essay’s ethos and throngs the moment I started reading. This helps me pause
I agree, and I think this conflict is actually visible within the essay. One particular parenthetical jumped out at me:
> So avoid the kind of distraction that pushes your work out of the top spot, or you'll waste this valuable type of thinking on the distraction instead. (Exception: Don't avoid love.)
PG never explains why love is an exception. Perhaps he thought it was obvious. I disagree.
I agree that familial love is important to the overall human experience. But this isn't an essay on how to live a fulfilling life, it's an essay on "how to do great work," for a so-called "very ambitious" person who wants to achieve "great work" at any cost. In this context, familial love is no less of a distraction than anything else. History is littered with eccentric artists who prioritized their work above any human interaction, and achieved fame for it.
So why does PG say not to avoid love? I believe it's because deep down, he realizes that "great work" isn't the most important thing in life—but he isn't quite aware enough to acknowledge it.
> So avoid the kind of distraction that pushes your work out of the top spot, or you'll waste this valuable type of thinking on the distraction instead. (Exception: Don't avoid love.)
PG never explains why love is an exception. Perhaps he thought it was obvious. I disagree.
I agree that familial love is important to the overall human experience. But this isn't an essay on how to live a fulfilling life, it's an essay on "how to do great work," for a so-called "very ambitious" person who wants to achieve "great work" at any cost. In this context, familial love is no less of a distraction than anything else. History is littered with eccentric artists who prioritized their work above any human interaction, and achieved fame for it.
So why does PG say not to avoid love? I believe it's because deep down, he realizes that "great work" isn't the most important thing in life—but he isn't quite aware enough to acknowledge it.
I don't think this essay ever actually made the value judgment that doing "great work" is "the most important thing in life" or even a good thing in life. Did I miss that part? I read it as, "for better or worse, some people are driven to do great work, here are some techniques to accomplish that". I think it's true, right?, that such people do exist, whether that is good or bad for them.
I suppose I know enough of his history to know that he would make that value judgment, but I read this particular essay as being fairly agnostic about it, leaving it up to the reader.
I suppose I know enough of his history to know that he would make that value judgment, but I read this particular essay as being fairly agnostic about it, leaving it up to the reader.
It's true that I'm mostly responding to tone. But again: if this is just a guide for people who want a certain lifestyle, for better or worse, why the warning to not avoid love? I think it speaks to an unresolved conflict.
The parenthetical shouldn't be there if PG really does want this to be a no-judgement how-to guide. Love is distracting, for better or worse.
The parenthetical shouldn't be there if PG really does want this to be a no-judgement how-to guide. Love is distracting, for better or worse.
Playing devil's advocate a bit, imagining an argument that definitely wasn't made in the essay itself, and which I don't necessarily think is right: It's possible that he meant that love seems like a distraction like others, but is actually critical in some way for doing great work. There are both kinds of stories out there, both those whose loving partnership was clearly critical to their work, and those who were isolated and loveless (but maybe would have been even more successful if it were not so?).
But I do tend to agree with you that if it is "how to pursue great work at all cost", then singling out love as the only distraction worth keeping is contradictory to that thesis.
But I do tend to agree with you that if it is "how to pursue great work at all cost", then singling out love as the only distraction worth keeping is contradictory to that thesis.
I'm inclined to agree with you about whether this is the best path to a good life.
But I also don't think the essay actually does romanticize "great work". I read it as, "if you are the kind of person who naturally has this kind of ambition, this essay will speak to you, and if you aren't that kind of person, it won't". That is, I think it's necessary for you to be that kind of person, in order to read the essay as a romanticism. And clearly you have that in you, as your anecdote about piano demonstrates. And even though you have concluded that this is not a good facet of your personality, it's hard to truly shake it.
Personally, this plight really speaks to me (and I'm sorry if I'm just projecting that onto you...). When I really think about it, the happiest most chill times in my life and career are when I've just been plugging away doing useful and well-compensated work, but definitely not "great work" in the essay's sense. I have told myself many times to just do that and do fun and enriching things with my friends and family and be content with that. But it never fails, I always get the nag eventually, to be more ambitious, to try to do work that is more impactful, more "great". So this essay spoke to me, because of that trait I seem to have, even if I'm totally unconvinced that it is the best path to a good life.
And I don't think this is universal. I think nearly everyone I know would instead read this essay as "that sounds exhausting and terrible" and, as the essay alludes to at the end, would not make it very deep into it.
But yeah, striving to do the kind of "great work" that this essay is talking about is certainly not what I want for my children... The best outcome is succeeding after a huge life-impacting amount of work, and the more likely outcome is constant nagging doubt without any pot of gold at the end.
But I also don't think the essay actually does romanticize "great work". I read it as, "if you are the kind of person who naturally has this kind of ambition, this essay will speak to you, and if you aren't that kind of person, it won't". That is, I think it's necessary for you to be that kind of person, in order to read the essay as a romanticism. And clearly you have that in you, as your anecdote about piano demonstrates. And even though you have concluded that this is not a good facet of your personality, it's hard to truly shake it.
Personally, this plight really speaks to me (and I'm sorry if I'm just projecting that onto you...). When I really think about it, the happiest most chill times in my life and career are when I've just been plugging away doing useful and well-compensated work, but definitely not "great work" in the essay's sense. I have told myself many times to just do that and do fun and enriching things with my friends and family and be content with that. But it never fails, I always get the nag eventually, to be more ambitious, to try to do work that is more impactful, more "great". So this essay spoke to me, because of that trait I seem to have, even if I'm totally unconvinced that it is the best path to a good life.
And I don't think this is universal. I think nearly everyone I know would instead read this essay as "that sounds exhausting and terrible" and, as the essay alludes to at the end, would not make it very deep into it.
But yeah, striving to do the kind of "great work" that this essay is talking about is certainly not what I want for my children... The best outcome is succeeding after a huge life-impacting amount of work, and the more likely outcome is constant nagging doubt without any pot of gold at the end.
This comment reminded me so much of the movie Whiplash. If you haven’t seen it, it’s worth a watch, given your history.
> Ambition is still an admirable trait to have because, among other things, it demonstrates that you have curiosity and a love for life.
Thanks for a very beautiful response in general. I particularly liked this formulation. Ambition is not the (proper) end; curiosity and a love for life are ends in and of themselves. My personal experience -- I wonder if others feel the same -- is that working on a "big problem" or "something" great is far too abstract a motivation.
Thanks for a very beautiful response in general. I particularly liked this formulation. Ambition is not the (proper) end; curiosity and a love for life are ends in and of themselves. My personal experience -- I wonder if others feel the same -- is that working on a "big problem" or "something" great is far too abstract a motivation.
Another thing you need: patience.
I'm 34, and just in the last year reached the point where I have:
- enough experience and context to do great work, and
- the right people to leverage that context and experience on meaningful applications
It took a lot of waiting for that ideal blend of circumstances to come around. I wish I'd have been able to tell my 26 year old self that as he slogged through an entry level EE job. The choices he made affected where I am now, but he definitely made some sacrifices on my behalf.
I'm 34, and just in the last year reached the point where I have:
- enough experience and context to do great work, and
- the right people to leverage that context and experience on meaningful applications
It took a lot of waiting for that ideal blend of circumstances to come around. I wish I'd have been able to tell my 26 year old self that as he slogged through an entry level EE job. The choices he made affected where I am now, but he definitely made some sacrifices on my behalf.
Similar but more confidence.
And ignoring all self doubt and imposter feelings has made my career way less stressful.
And ignoring all self doubt and imposter feelings has made my career way less stressful.
This is an important point…..
Great work and your craftsmanship/experience/wisdom/capabilities are interrelated.
Being able to do great work is partly a function of your ability to work.
Great work and your craftsmanship/experience/wisdom/capabilities are interrelated.
Being able to do great work is partly a function of your ability to work.
> the right people to leverage that context and experience on meaningful applications
Whss as t does this entail, business context?
Whss as t does this entail, business context?
Hofstadter’s Law:
It always takes longer than you think, even if you take into account Hofstadter’s Law.
It always takes longer than you think, even if you take into account Hofstadter’s Law.
I think people can do great work at any age. Sometimes newcomers look at a long-standing problem and discover or design a new approach that is substantially better. Other times established experts can leverage the breadth of their experience to develop a better solution or offering. For me, the key elements are the desire to create something of value or make a contribution, a willingness to collaborate to extend what you can accomplish, and the self-discipline to work hard for extended periods of time.
Exactly, I'd reckon you have a better position to do great work when you are older, given you know yourself better and what makes you tick.
This is IMO impossible without experimentation and doing stupid stuff during the 20s.
I just turned 35 and only starting out on the best work of my life in the shape of offering something of value except for just my time at work prior.
This is IMO impossible without experimentation and doing stupid stuff during the 20s.
I just turned 35 and only starting out on the best work of my life in the shape of offering something of value except for just my time at work prior.
have you got any kids?
I'm 30 and one of my biggest worries is that starting a family will mean I will never get the time to do great things.
I also got a fair share of skills under my belt and a lot of motivation. My relationship always ends to taking time away from my projects however and that's only going to get worse once there's a kid 5 years down the road.
Then again Bach had a lot of kids, and look at the body of his work.
Then again Bach had a lot of kids, and look at the body of his work.
There are two peaks of entrepreneurship, the 20's and the 40's. Catch the second peak.
this makes me smile, thank you
Was about to respond but somebody did it already below (mkoubaa) :)
Sounds about the right time for you to have babies and ruin all that readiness for great work.
My experience having a child is that it made me more ambitious, not less. And not for the child's sake, necessarily
If anything, my kid being born helped increase my output.
Limited time makes it a lot easier to decide what to focus on.
Limited time makes it a lot easier to decide what to focus on.
Limited time? Congrats, Lol with a full time job I didn't have time to do anything.
I respect Paul and everything that he writes, even if I don’t agree with it. It takes some serious stones to publish your thoughts on the internet - whether people agree or not.
In any case. This seems like a continuation of the never ending quest for people to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of a corporate profit they will never see.
I’m not interested in eliminating the ceiling - I want to raise the floor. Having a “side hustle” shouldn’t be a requirement to get by.
I am frustrated that the USA’s money advice largely comes from billionaires. They’re not like us. That’s OK. There’s a lot of room between millions and billions
In any case. This seems like a continuation of the never ending quest for people to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of a corporate profit they will never see.
I’m not interested in eliminating the ceiling - I want to raise the floor. Having a “side hustle” shouldn’t be a requirement to get by.
I am frustrated that the USA’s money advice largely comes from billionaires. They’re not like us. That’s OK. There’s a lot of room between millions and billions
> I am frustrated that the USA’s money advice largely comes from billionaires.
One of my big issues with the 'follow your passion' advice is it almost always comes from people who are already rich. And, those people are often trying to leverage worker passion to staff their companies.
As a young person, don't follow your passion. Instead, figure out the fastest way to economic security and once there, then figure out a passion.
One of my big issues with the 'follow your passion' advice is it almost always comes from people who are already rich. And, those people are often trying to leverage worker passion to staff their companies.
As a young person, don't follow your passion. Instead, figure out the fastest way to economic security and once there, then figure out a passion.
> Instead, figure out the fastest way to economic security and once there, then figure out a passion
This is good advice and I agree with it. I just wish it wasn’t the advice we had to give
This is good advice and I agree with it. I just wish it wasn’t the advice we had to give
Do you say that because you think the work required to achieve economic security is too much? I ask because it's hard to imagine an alternative that would enable more people to follow their passions without securing the essentials first.
There's an interview with Bo Burnham where he puts it clearly...
> Don't listen to people who just got very lucky. Taylor Swift telling you to "follow your dreams" is like a lottery winner saying "liquidise your assets, buy Powerball tickets. It works!"
And that's the thing. Skill and talent are important, but there's a certain amount of success that's only achievable through luck, or through starting from _so far ahead_ that it's just genuinely out of reach for us mere mortals.
Is the experience of those people irrelevant? No, but it's also not actually applicable to most other people.
> Don't listen to people who just got very lucky. Taylor Swift telling you to "follow your dreams" is like a lottery winner saying "liquidise your assets, buy Powerball tickets. It works!"
And that's the thing. Skill and talent are important, but there's a certain amount of success that's only achievable through luck, or through starting from _so far ahead_ that it's just genuinely out of reach for us mere mortals.
Is the experience of those people irrelevant? No, but it's also not actually applicable to most other people.
Surely there's some luck involved, but wouldn't the Taylor Swift analogy be more like "develop a product that leverages your talents and is likely to have mass appeal, work your ass off perfecting your ability to deliver that product, take the extreme negative externalities of success in your business without complaining, and once you get traction double down on the working your ass off part?" Oh and also "have sufficient business acumen to stare down Apple and win?"
There's a saying from Eastern Europe: first learn a trade, then follow your dreams. If the dreams don't work out, you'll still be able to earn a living.
Andrzej Sapkowski (polish fantasy author, of "The Witcher" fame), when asked about his advice for young people who want to be professional writers like him said: "get into an honest and, if at all possible, profitable profession". We're not dreamers here in EE like people in US, we're not reach enough to afford it :)
> One of my big issues with the 'follow your passion' advice is it almost always comes from people who are already rich
This. My sister is quite an accomplished artist who decided out of college to follow her passion. https://instagram.com/carmeljenkin?igshid=YzcxN2Q2NzY0OA==
She is not rich and has to hustle like crazy to sell her artwork while also working tables at a casino and raising a daughter. I doubt that she would advise anyone to just follow their passion without first establishing some kind of financial base.
This. My sister is quite an accomplished artist who decided out of college to follow her passion. https://instagram.com/carmeljenkin?igshid=YzcxN2Q2NzY0OA==
She is not rich and has to hustle like crazy to sell her artwork while also working tables at a casino and raising a daughter. I doubt that she would advise anyone to just follow their passion without first establishing some kind of financial base.
> And, those people are often trying to leverage worker passion to staff their companies.
Is there usually a good reason for an average employee to pour their passion into work? Seems like it's better to do a better job than your peers/coworkers but not shoot for the moon, unless you're getting a significant amount of that profit.
Most passions I see are usually poured into something separate from your earning potential, i.e. working a service job while writing music, auditioning for a movie or play, etc.
Unless they can afford to go all in, via startup funding or savings while working on their own project.
Is there usually a good reason for an average employee to pour their passion into work? Seems like it's better to do a better job than your peers/coworkers but not shoot for the moon, unless you're getting a significant amount of that profit.
Most passions I see are usually poured into something separate from your earning potential, i.e. working a service job while writing music, auditioning for a movie or play, etc.
Unless they can afford to go all in, via startup funding or savings while working on their own project.
I have noticed a divergence between product quality and incentive. The more distant the incentives are the less product quality matters. I have observed this at every place of employment, personal project, and entertainment software I have ever touched. It comes down to this:
1) What is the purpose of the product/platform/work? Typically when speaking of software generally there is only one correct answer: automation. If the stakeholder cannot answer this question in 2 words or less nothing else matters, because this the foundation from everything else derives.
2) How does the stakeholder define product quality? Do they measure any of that? If there are not written goals AND measures its probably all bullshit.
3) How directly are incentives tied to the defined product quality goals? If I have to count the hops using two hands there are no product quality goals.
4) What is the target audience of the product quality goals? In theory the primary audience should that which is the primary driver of revenue, but in reality it is typically that which is of greatest comfort to people analyzing requirements. This is where things get toxic. This is what makes me want to abandon software as a profession.
5) Incentives are not necessarily compensation.
With this list in mind the typical goal of a corporate software developer is to complete some tasks, get paid, and retain employment. Product quality is completely irrelevant up to and including some tolerance for terminal failure.
1) What is the purpose of the product/platform/work? Typically when speaking of software generally there is only one correct answer: automation. If the stakeholder cannot answer this question in 2 words or less nothing else matters, because this the foundation from everything else derives.
2) How does the stakeholder define product quality? Do they measure any of that? If there are not written goals AND measures its probably all bullshit.
3) How directly are incentives tied to the defined product quality goals? If I have to count the hops using two hands there are no product quality goals.
4) What is the target audience of the product quality goals? In theory the primary audience should that which is the primary driver of revenue, but in reality it is typically that which is of greatest comfort to people analyzing requirements. This is where things get toxic. This is what makes me want to abandon software as a profession.
5) Incentives are not necessarily compensation.
With this list in mind the typical goal of a corporate software developer is to complete some tasks, get paid, and retain employment. Product quality is completely irrelevant up to and including some tolerance for terminal failure.
> including some tolerance for terminal failure.
On the other hand, you cannot survive as a corporate software dev without this ability because 80% of the failure will be completely unrelated to anything you do.
I keep thinking about these two massive projects we were working on with literally 50 people only to find out after completion that nobody had asked the client if they actually wanted anything like it. All that work down the drain...
On the other hand, you cannot survive as a corporate software dev without this ability because 80% of the failure will be completely unrelated to anything you do.
I keep thinking about these two massive projects we were working on with literally 50 people only to find out after completion that nobody had asked the client if they actually wanted anything like it. All that work down the drain...
> This seems like a continuation of the never ending quest for people to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of a corporate profit they will never see.
Reading the essay I didn't see a reference to "the betterment of a corporate profit". Doing good work doesn't mean starting a startup, if this is what you meant.
Reading the essay I didn't see a reference to "the betterment of a corporate profit". Doing good work doesn't mean starting a startup, if this is what you meant.
I agree. I read most of this as an internally facing focus. I feel like now days we are so cynical. You can't take pride in your work, or want to do a good job because you'll just be "doing it for corporate profit". To me, it's more internally focused, learning and building for your own benefit, because you want to know more or do it a bit better. I think the big thing is that you're not competing against anyone else; rather, you're just trying to do and be a bit better than who you were.
I think this essay applies not only on business but also your craft.
If you like painting, work on your craft, not for the sake of betterment but for the sake of joy and appreciation for your craft.
If its weightlifting work on it for the sake of yourself.
IMO this applies to everything you do.
If you like painting, work on your craft, not for the sake of betterment but for the sake of joy and appreciation for your craft.
If its weightlifting work on it for the sake of yourself.
IMO this applies to everything you do.
"The way to figure out what to work on is by working. If you're not sure what to work on, guess. But pick something and get going."
I very much agree with this sentiment. That's how you find good problems to solve. In general, we don't teach enough about "problem finding" which is arguably harder and more important than problem solving.
I very much agree with this sentiment. That's how you find good problems to solve. In general, we don't teach enough about "problem finding" which is arguably harder and more important than problem solving.
There's another word for this...play?
It's not exactly play, it's more like focused exploration. Eg Columbus setting sail without knowing what he would find. You wouldn't say he was playing but you would say he was discovering.
[deleted]
Just stumbled upon this thread and wanted to share Richard Hamming's classic talk from '86, "You and Your Research."
Then I realized that the funny part is that PG has already linked to Hamming's talk on his site (http://www.paulgraham.com/hamming.html), and mentioned it on Twitter (https://twitter.com/paulg/status/849300780997890048).
There’s a part in that talk that has always stuck with me: he advises to ask yourself at every Friday evening, "What are the important problems in my field?" Not entirely dissimilar from PG’s take on how the educational system in forcing you to commit prematurely often has you overlook this entirely.
In the vein of "great minds think alike," both of them hammer home the importance of working on what genuinely grabs your interest. PG's advice is to "optimize for interestingness" ; Hamming when he says, "If you do not work on an important problem, it's unlikely you'll do important work."
I got a kick out of how both of them advocate for being flexible in our approach to work — especially given how launching and pivoting after learning from your users has also been the PG advice for the better part of two decades in startup-focused essays. PG's all for switching horses mid-race if a more exciting problem shows up , and Hamming shares the same sentiment, stressing the importance of being ready to seize new opportunities. Today pivoting is just default vernacular in startup world, but also cutting losses and getting that fractal and pushing that to its end is worth it.
Curious how has "optimizing for interestingness" played out in your own work or life? Additionally, curious if there are any good HN stories about pursuing research and “pivoting” in fields that are not searching for product-market/fit for a startup…
(Hamming’s talk has been shared countless times here and this feels like PG’s contribution to a similar idea (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35778036)).
Then I realized that the funny part is that PG has already linked to Hamming's talk on his site (http://www.paulgraham.com/hamming.html), and mentioned it on Twitter (https://twitter.com/paulg/status/849300780997890048).
There’s a part in that talk that has always stuck with me: he advises to ask yourself at every Friday evening, "What are the important problems in my field?" Not entirely dissimilar from PG’s take on how the educational system in forcing you to commit prematurely often has you overlook this entirely.
In the vein of "great minds think alike," both of them hammer home the importance of working on what genuinely grabs your interest. PG's advice is to "optimize for interestingness" ; Hamming when he says, "If you do not work on an important problem, it's unlikely you'll do important work."
I got a kick out of how both of them advocate for being flexible in our approach to work — especially given how launching and pivoting after learning from your users has also been the PG advice for the better part of two decades in startup-focused essays. PG's all for switching horses mid-race if a more exciting problem shows up , and Hamming shares the same sentiment, stressing the importance of being ready to seize new opportunities. Today pivoting is just default vernacular in startup world, but also cutting losses and getting that fractal and pushing that to its end is worth it.
Curious how has "optimizing for interestingness" played out in your own work or life? Additionally, curious if there are any good HN stories about pursuing research and “pivoting” in fields that are not searching for product-market/fit for a startup…
(Hamming’s talk has been shared countless times here and this feels like PG’s contribution to a similar idea (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35778036)).
There's an unspoken aspect of the word "important" here — important to you, or important to the world (society, etc)?
From Hamming:
"I thought hard about where was my field going, where were the opportunities, and what were the important things to do. Let me go there so there is a chance I can do important things."
It seems he is talking about the important to the world aspect. He wants to have a big impact on the world, and be where the action is. The goal is to make a name for yourself, or to at least have a hand in the next big transformations.
But there is also the "important to you" aspect. In Hamming's case, those two notions of importance align. But not so for everyone.
Quoting again:
"I went home one Friday after finishing a problem, and curiously enough I wasn't happy; I was depressed. I could see life being a long sequence of one problem after another after another."
So, he is happiest when working on problems that have big "important" implications for the world. Good for him; I'm glad he discovered that about himself, and followed what made him happy.
So now for my actual point: I'd encourage a person to actually first and foremost focus on what is important to them personally — what makes them happy — rather than what seems "important" from some external perspective.
I think a lot of people will decide, like Hamming did, that they want to be where the action is, that they want to participate in transforming the world, that that is what makes them happy. But to put that choice on a pedestal as though it is the True Goal — to put "important to society" above "important to oneself" is putting the cart before the horse. It's how you get a bunch of unhappy people chasing after other people's dreams.
It's actually somewhat touched upon in TFA, with:
"The following recipe assumes you're very ambitious."
Indeed — like Hamming was. But not everyone is, and not everyone needs to be to be happy. I am just slightly irked by our somehow reserving the word "great" for ambitious people's accomplishments.
From Hamming:
"I thought hard about where was my field going, where were the opportunities, and what were the important things to do. Let me go there so there is a chance I can do important things."
It seems he is talking about the important to the world aspect. He wants to have a big impact on the world, and be where the action is. The goal is to make a name for yourself, or to at least have a hand in the next big transformations.
But there is also the "important to you" aspect. In Hamming's case, those two notions of importance align. But not so for everyone.
Quoting again:
"I went home one Friday after finishing a problem, and curiously enough I wasn't happy; I was depressed. I could see life being a long sequence of one problem after another after another."
So, he is happiest when working on problems that have big "important" implications for the world. Good for him; I'm glad he discovered that about himself, and followed what made him happy.
So now for my actual point: I'd encourage a person to actually first and foremost focus on what is important to them personally — what makes them happy — rather than what seems "important" from some external perspective.
I think a lot of people will decide, like Hamming did, that they want to be where the action is, that they want to participate in transforming the world, that that is what makes them happy. But to put that choice on a pedestal as though it is the True Goal — to put "important to society" above "important to oneself" is putting the cart before the horse. It's how you get a bunch of unhappy people chasing after other people's dreams.
It's actually somewhat touched upon in TFA, with:
"The following recipe assumes you're very ambitious."
Indeed — like Hamming was. But not everyone is, and not everyone needs to be to be happy. I am just slightly irked by our somehow reserving the word "great" for ambitious people's accomplishments.
Right now, the audio tech/software niche is abuzz with ideas and attempts related to using transformer technology within the field. Music generation, new synthesis techniques, generative DSP and more.
According to the field, viewed from some altitude, these the "important (to the world)" things.
But for myself, with 25+ years in the field, I couldn't give a rat's arse about any of it. Absolutely not "important (to me)".
Am I ambitious (still) ? I think so. But I'm also picky about where I'm willing to put my energy.
According to the field, viewed from some altitude, these the "important (to the world)" things.
But for myself, with 25+ years in the field, I couldn't give a rat's arse about any of it. Absolutely not "important (to me)".
Am I ambitious (still) ? I think so. But I'm also picky about where I'm willing to put my energy.
Curious, do you just think the industry is over hyped
Not the industry, but the rush-to-"AI" is certainly over-hyped and displays a very shallow understanding of the role of art of any form for most human beings.
The older I get the more I think this is fine, and more or less the way of the world.
Let the young ones expend their energy and drive trying to do all kinds of weird, pointless and occassionally very useful shit while we keep the world running.
Let the young ones expend their energy and drive trying to do all kinds of weird, pointless and occassionally very useful shit while we keep the world running.
>I think a lot of people will decide, like Hamming did, that they want to be where the action is, that they want to participate in transforming the world, that that is what makes them happy.
In my 37 years of experience: people do want to be where the action is, but many people who are the main examples of 'being at the action' already were at a location where the action happened to end up. I.e., people working for a long time on an 'obscure' problem interesting to them suddenly see that 'obscure' problem become important and fall into success (think of all the CS people working on DL/ANNs in the 90s. I don't think Yann LeCunn was a known name in the 90s).
The tragedy is that it's very hard to predict where the action will be. Literature is full of people who lucked into that position, and obviously ignores the millions who were where the action never ended up.
With some experience you can shift your focus to where you think the action will be: it's probably best not to run after the money, but walk towards it.
In my 37 years of experience: people do want to be where the action is, but many people who are the main examples of 'being at the action' already were at a location where the action happened to end up. I.e., people working for a long time on an 'obscure' problem interesting to them suddenly see that 'obscure' problem become important and fall into success (think of all the CS people working on DL/ANNs in the 90s. I don't think Yann LeCunn was a known name in the 90s).
The tragedy is that it's very hard to predict where the action will be. Literature is full of people who lucked into that position, and obviously ignores the millions who were where the action never ended up.
With some experience you can shift your focus to where you think the action will be: it's probably best not to run after the money, but walk towards it.
> What are you excessively curious about — curious to a degree that would bore most other people? That's what you're looking for.
This is a great article, but there are many, many people for whom this advice is going to lead nowhere or worse. They have often been to fancy universities and have often earned fancy degrees. But what they don't realize is that they've also been trained to respond to the praise of authority figures. The article touches on this point later, but emphasizes a different outcome.
If there's one thing that authority figures absolutely hate is a project that makes you excessively curious.
I'll speculate that those most affected by this perverse reward system will deny its influence over them most strongly. They won't realize that their motivation for projects stems from the enthusiasm that authority figure show or withhold. They will therefore conclude that the warning above does not apply to them. And they will have a very hard time.
I saw this first-hand in graduate school. At least half the students had never learned to disregard the level of the greybeard's enthusiasm when choosing projects. Unsurprisingly, they also did not understood the process of formulating a project idea. This was the half that had, by far, the hardest time. At the slightest hint of graybeard apathy for a project idea, they were onto something else.
This is a great article, but there are many, many people for whom this advice is going to lead nowhere or worse. They have often been to fancy universities and have often earned fancy degrees. But what they don't realize is that they've also been trained to respond to the praise of authority figures. The article touches on this point later, but emphasizes a different outcome.
If there's one thing that authority figures absolutely hate is a project that makes you excessively curious.
I'll speculate that those most affected by this perverse reward system will deny its influence over them most strongly. They won't realize that their motivation for projects stems from the enthusiasm that authority figure show or withhold. They will therefore conclude that the warning above does not apply to them. And they will have a very hard time.
I saw this first-hand in graduate school. At least half the students had never learned to disregard the level of the greybeard's enthusiasm when choosing projects. Unsurprisingly, they also did not understood the process of formulating a project idea. This was the half that had, by far, the hardest time. At the slightest hint of graybeard apathy for a project idea, they were onto something else.
At the end of the day, your curiosity and talent is used to make money for someone.
Fetishizing work productivity and ability ignores the fact that most company owners are managerial types that will harness your output for monetary value. You could easily end up wasting your life by becoming some niche field leader in the systems you work on, but never enjoying the rewards of your talent.
Hackernews in particular likes the idea of a life spent entirely behind a laptop, but there is a larger world out there, and the winners are enjoying it while we chase little lifehacks to eke out 20 extra minutes of productivity in a 10 hour day.
I'm as guilty of this productivity fetishization as anyone here, but am just reaching a point in life where I'm starting to notice the walls of the maze.
Fetishizing work productivity and ability ignores the fact that most company owners are managerial types that will harness your output for monetary value. You could easily end up wasting your life by becoming some niche field leader in the systems you work on, but never enjoying the rewards of your talent.
Hackernews in particular likes the idea of a life spent entirely behind a laptop, but there is a larger world out there, and the winners are enjoying it while we chase little lifehacks to eke out 20 extra minutes of productivity in a 10 hour day.
I'm as guilty of this productivity fetishization as anyone here, but am just reaching a point in life where I'm starting to notice the walls of the maze.
Thanks for putting this out in words. It really hits the nail on how I've been feeling lately.
Somewhat related, Kevin Gross and Carl T Bergstrom just put up this preprint on risk aversion in science: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.13816
> incentives to motivate effort clash with incentives to motivate risk-taking, because a failed project may be evidence of a risky undertaking but could also be the result of simple sloth. As a result, the incentives needed to encourage effort actively discourage risk-taking. Scientists respond by working on safe projects that generate evidence of effort but that don't move science forward as rapidly as riskier projects would.
> incentives to motivate effort clash with incentives to motivate risk-taking, because a failed project may be evidence of a risky undertaking but could also be the result of simple sloth. As a result, the incentives needed to encourage effort actively discourage risk-taking. Scientists respond by working on safe projects that generate evidence of effort but that don't move science forward as rapidly as riskier projects would.
This really resonates with my personal experience.
Still, I can hear my inner contrarian asking: to what extent are people happier/more productive if their work follows their curiosity? We're encouraged to get in touch with your true curiosity/interest, free ourselves from expectations, etc. Personally, I've found the greatest satisfaction, peace, and even freedom when I work on things that are useful to my friends (let's include authority figures in this framing for the sake of argument). Typically, these aren't things I particularly care about. It turns out I want to help my friends, get praise from them, and maybe learn new things along the way.
Without getting too far into evolutionary psychology reductionism, this seems... kind of reasonable? I don't necessarily think I have excessive curiosity towards any particular thing. I can empathize with people who, assuming they had a relatively stable/privileged upbringing, don't have an inner voice telling them what to work on -- maybe that's asking more than is reasonable?
Still, I can hear my inner contrarian asking: to what extent are people happier/more productive if their work follows their curiosity? We're encouraged to get in touch with your true curiosity/interest, free ourselves from expectations, etc. Personally, I've found the greatest satisfaction, peace, and even freedom when I work on things that are useful to my friends (let's include authority figures in this framing for the sake of argument). Typically, these aren't things I particularly care about. It turns out I want to help my friends, get praise from them, and maybe learn new things along the way.
Without getting too far into evolutionary psychology reductionism, this seems... kind of reasonable? I don't necessarily think I have excessive curiosity towards any particular thing. I can empathize with people who, assuming they had a relatively stable/privileged upbringing, don't have an inner voice telling them what to work on -- maybe that's asking more than is reasonable?
As Mark Twain said: "I wrote a long essay because I didn't want to put the effort writing a shorter one" - applies to this piece.
Guess you didn’t read to the end
No, I did not.
The question is ill-posed imo. I would invert the question and ask: "How not to suck at your work" as that would lead to similar conclusions, and is more actionable.
This essay has too many weasel sentences like:
"Boldly chase outlier ideas,"
"Husband your morale"
"Doing great work is a depth-first search whose root node is the desire to. "
"Curiosity is the best guide."
This is woolly-feel-good writing that chatgpt and folks like steve pinker, deepak chopra etc specialize in, ie: a bag-of-words about fuzzy feel-good ideas we all want to hear.
The question is ill-posed imo. I would invert the question and ask: "How not to suck at your work" as that would lead to similar conclusions, and is more actionable.
This essay has too many weasel sentences like:
"Boldly chase outlier ideas,"
"Husband your morale"
"Doing great work is a depth-first search whose root node is the desire to. "
"Curiosity is the best guide."
This is woolly-feel-good writing that chatgpt and folks like steve pinker, deepak chopra etc specialize in, ie: a bag-of-words about fuzzy feel-good ideas we all want to hear.
[deleted]
The essay is about something different than "how not to suck at your work".
Many of us feel this way about his essays. He bloviates often as if on a pedestal without realizing how transparently arrogant he sounds. Many of his ideas inherently contradict his other ideas, or are simply vague and shallow. But he’s rich, so of course he must be an astute philosopher.
[deleted]
The comment above was fair criticism. This one is needlessly mean. Pay attention to the community guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Thank you for your note, and for all you do to help moderate HN. Moderators like you help keep the site honest.
I have reviewed the link you provided. I agree with the guidelines noted therein. I asked some of my peers to give an objective read of my comment and they found it an accurate reflection of how they too responded to the posted essay. I cannot identify anything about it that was contrary to what is observed by many members of this community.
I do apologize to you though if you read it differently.
I have reviewed the link you provided. I agree with the guidelines noted therein. I asked some of my peers to give an objective read of my comment and they found it an accurate reflection of how they too responded to the posted essay. I cannot identify anything about it that was contrary to what is observed by many members of this community.
I do apologize to you though if you read it differently.
I'm not a moderator, just a fellow user.
I think he knew, and he just labelled you.
> Knowledge expands fractally, and from a distance its edges look smooth, but once you learn enough to get close to one, they turn out to be full of gaps.
It is incredibly easy to get onto untrodden ground just by stepping off the main path a bit. You’re fighting with a lot of smart people to have a new insight about pi and e. But if you focus on application of theory, it’s very easy to do something new. Application is about intersections, and the combinatorics brings novelty right to your nose.
Pick a random combination of tech, domain, and theory and it’s unlikely to have been explored. It’s unlikely to be useful, but that’s what makes it exploration and not farming.
It is incredibly easy to get onto untrodden ground just by stepping off the main path a bit. You’re fighting with a lot of smart people to have a new insight about pi and e. But if you focus on application of theory, it’s very easy to do something new. Application is about intersections, and the combinatorics brings novelty right to your nose.
Pick a random combination of tech, domain, and theory and it’s unlikely to have been explored. It’s unlikely to be useful, but that’s what makes it exploration and not farming.
It’s so incredible how deep the rabbit-hole goes when you try to solve a real world problem and you have the capacity to understand and pull information from a vast number of seemingly unrelated works.
I really believe that this is the best time to be a polymath, or at least have a broad spectrum of knowledge and references to look into and pull information from; and that being a true generalist that can dive as deep as needed enables you to build great stuff. But maybe that’s just my experience.
I really believe that this is the best time to be a polymath, or at least have a broad spectrum of knowledge and references to look into and pull information from; and that being a true generalist that can dive as deep as needed enables you to build great stuff. But maybe that’s just my experience.
I second that, I feel like right now, with the rise of ML tools in audio production, demucs, audio to midi, voice clones etc, the rise of image generation and text. Coupled with some coding skills and interests in many different fields I could not get bored in a million years because there can be so much to jump into and learn/create/explore
> It’s so incredible how deep the rabbit-hole goes when you try to solve a real world problem and you have the capacity to understand and pull information from a vast number of seemingly unrelated works.
It's funny, I considered quoting this other part as well:
> The big prize is to discover a new fractal bud. You notice a crack in the surface of knowledge, pry it open, and there's a whole world inside.
The nature of fractals is that everything is a new fractal bud. There's really endless complexity everywhere. So I don't think that alone is the "big prize". There's some other dimension, like utility or interest. Because I get that discovering a new subfield of topology is different from discovering the new sounds you can make banging on your stove. But it's not just that one has more to it than the other.
Real world problems with disparate fields involved are a rich of source of "medium sized" fractal buds by this unnamed measure. No one is dedicating their life to your application of measure theory to data dashboards, but it's meatier than searching in the absurd and easier to find than breaking ground in pure theory.
It's funny, I considered quoting this other part as well:
> The big prize is to discover a new fractal bud. You notice a crack in the surface of knowledge, pry it open, and there's a whole world inside.
The nature of fractals is that everything is a new fractal bud. There's really endless complexity everywhere. So I don't think that alone is the "big prize". There's some other dimension, like utility or interest. Because I get that discovering a new subfield of topology is different from discovering the new sounds you can make banging on your stove. But it's not just that one has more to it than the other.
Real world problems with disparate fields involved are a rich of source of "medium sized" fractal buds by this unnamed measure. No one is dedicating their life to your application of measure theory to data dashboards, but it's meatier than searching in the absurd and easier to find than breaking ground in pure theory.
> The nature of fractals is that everything is a new fractal bud. There's really endless complexity everywhere. So I don't think that alone is the "big prize". There's some other dimension, like utility or interest.
Here's another dimension: try convincing others of this while they're discussing a specific object level problem and see how that goes.
Here's another dimension: try convincing others of this while they're discussing a specific object level problem and see how that goes.
I don't really follow. You've quoted a few statements and I also don't know what you mean by a specific object level problem.
Is it that it would be hard to convince people there's endless complexity in this domain while they're deciding what to get for lunch? Yeah, probably. They're too hungry.
Is it that it would be hard to convince people there's endless complexity in this domain while they're deciding what to get for lunch? Yeah, probably. They're too hungry.
There are certain complexities that only seem (currently) accessible from an abstract state of mind.
For example, people (including right here on HN) will often enthusiastically agree that they are subjective to various cognitive flaws when discussing a psychology paper on the subject, but this fact typically cannot be realized or even considered when discussing specific political matters. Ironically, genuine intelligence and knowledge often seems to make the problem even worse.
And of course, all of this theory is subject to the theory itself!
For example, people (including right here on HN) will often enthusiastically agree that they are subjective to various cognitive flaws when discussing a psychology paper on the subject, but this fact typically cannot be realized or even considered when discussing specific political matters. Ironically, genuine intelligence and knowledge often seems to make the problem even worse.
And of course, all of this theory is subject to the theory itself!
oh gosh I understand now and totally agree. I want to wire up an LLM to read a doc and just point out all of these sorts of flaws.
If you haven't read this (not LLM related), I highly recommend it: https://statweb.stanford.edu/~cgates/PERSI/papers/thinking.p...
If you haven't read this (not LLM related), I highly recommend it: https://statweb.stanford.edu/~cgates/PERSI/papers/thinking.p...
Re. "this is the best time to be a polymath". I was noticing something like that. For a while it became impossible to know or do "science" ("philosophy", was it?) as a whole. Too broad, too deep. That was not the end of the polymath but it was the end of truly broad expertise in one individual. Then the net in general made so much info available painlessly. (Much faster to dig deep on a narrow issue and switch issues - than say, even with a large academic library.) So that now, it's still not possible to master the forefront of tech or science on a very broad front, but it is possible to dig deep as needed to address this or that problem in the pursuit of what is now just about always a multidisciplinary project.
With the very present danger that many feel that a couple youtube videos is as deep as they ever need to go.
Being able to gauge how deep and broad you have to go for each difficulty you encounter has become an important skill. But polymath seems very possible.
With the very present danger that many feel that a couple youtube videos is as deep as they ever need to go.
Being able to gauge how deep and broad you have to go for each difficulty you encounter has become an important skill. But polymath seems very possible.
Yes! I've found this approach very useful with my own projects. I might not be out here inventing C++ or Linux, but it's actually not too hard to find projects where you can apply well known computing techniques or technologies to a new domain to do something truly new.
I think this is really motivational because doing something new and showing the world is really fun!
I think this is really motivational because doing something new and showing the world is really fun!
> I might not be out here inventing C++
thank you!
thank you!
World already has one C++ too many
. Thanks op
I don’t know man, farming in most of the world is a totally risky activity.
Some categories are explored or unexplored because either they didn't have a compelling, defining entrant like smart watches or they're Chindōgu like flying cars and VR.
Build something that's currently painful you know there's a definite need for and people would gladly pay money for. Solving a burning pain is far more compelling than incrementally better with the gotcha of introducing the risk of change.
The biggest mistake people make is not letting things soak in a lean, passive income marketable way. They'll build something, shake the trees for customers for a little while, and then turn it off 3 months later when they're not instant internet billionaires. Not working would be 15 years later <$10k/year net profit. Let it simmer with as little engineering investment as possible. Never waste time on churn for churn's sake, or effort that doesn't add end-user UX value.
Build something that's currently painful you know there's a definite need for and people would gladly pay money for. Solving a burning pain is far more compelling than incrementally better with the gotcha of introducing the risk of change.
The biggest mistake people make is not letting things soak in a lean, passive income marketable way. They'll build something, shake the trees for customers for a little while, and then turn it off 3 months later when they're not instant internet billionaires. Not working would be 15 years later <$10k/year net profit. Let it simmer with as little engineering investment as possible. Never waste time on churn for churn's sake, or effort that doesn't add end-user UX value.
PG tends to revisit the same topics from different angles in multiple essays as he's figuring something out. You can hear resonances of this essay in a previous essay he had a long time ago about cultivating taste for makers.
http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html
Ansel Adams tended to visit the same sites and take slightly different photographs over time, refining his vision of a place. I think it's a modality of most work, refinement and improvement over time as new perspectives are incorporated.
I revisit my favorite recipes and while each experiment isn't always better over a long enough time span they do seem to taste better
Fascinated as I might be to read an approximately 11 trillion word article which says "if you want to be great then work on things you are passionate about stay fresh and curious"
I have to first stop and wonder if this is advice that I've already seen being given in embroideries, on countless coffee mugs, or along the side of a ballpoint pen.
I have to first stop and wonder if this is advice that I've already seen being given in embroideries, on countless coffee mugs, or along the side of a ballpoint pen.
Yeah cynically this is jezebel for our demographic.
Live,laugh love. It’s wine o’clock. Do great work.
Live,laugh love. It’s wine o’clock. Do great work.
Well put. But what the article (and others like it) lacks is the fallback, the plan B, the exception handling, what to do if things don't work out as planned.
There's a Gauss curve. Simple stuff can be done by any idiot so there's going to be a lot of competition on that. Like picking strawberries, for any position there's 100 Mexicans (in the US) or Eastern European guys (in the EU) willing to do that for cheap. So getting good (skilled, educated) does decrease competition and increase one's chances of doing "great work". But from a point on you reach into the territory where there's just too much genius, semi-autistic high IQ workaholics that crowd some niche field and eventually you end up competing with the same 100 hulks for one job. Doesn't matter if it's picking strawberries or playing forward in Champions League, if you're not getting either you're still a loser. It's a dog eat dog world, winners take all and there's no reward for the effort. If you don't win the big prize, you've wasted your life for nothing.
So exception handling: if you invest a lot of effort into something make sure you get to reap some rewards even if you're one of the 99 guys that doesn't get to pick the strawberries.
Otherwise like a great Romanian scholar and philosopher once said: "Decât să lucri de-a pulea mai bine stai de-a pulea (Gigi Becali)". Loosely translated: "Rather than work your ass off for nothing, better sit on your ass for nothing".
There's a Gauss curve. Simple stuff can be done by any idiot so there's going to be a lot of competition on that. Like picking strawberries, for any position there's 100 Mexicans (in the US) or Eastern European guys (in the EU) willing to do that for cheap. So getting good (skilled, educated) does decrease competition and increase one's chances of doing "great work". But from a point on you reach into the territory where there's just too much genius, semi-autistic high IQ workaholics that crowd some niche field and eventually you end up competing with the same 100 hulks for one job. Doesn't matter if it's picking strawberries or playing forward in Champions League, if you're not getting either you're still a loser. It's a dog eat dog world, winners take all and there's no reward for the effort. If you don't win the big prize, you've wasted your life for nothing.
So exception handling: if you invest a lot of effort into something make sure you get to reap some rewards even if you're one of the 99 guys that doesn't get to pick the strawberries.
Otherwise like a great Romanian scholar and philosopher once said: "Decât să lucri de-a pulea mai bine stai de-a pulea (Gigi Becali)". Loosely translated: "Rather than work your ass off for nothing, better sit on your ass for nothing".
in tech at least even if you fail, you are developing valuable skills that can be used elsewhere. Plenty of failed startup founders end up at other places in engineering or management roles
not creating a billion dollar startup isn't a failure, tons of people in the tech industry retire as multimillionaires essentially working a 9-5. A lot of people on HN seem to think if you don't make the Forbes list you are a failure
not creating a billion dollar startup isn't a failure, tons of people in the tech industry retire as multimillionaires essentially working a 9-5. A lot of people on HN seem to think if you don't make the Forbes list you are a failure
>
in tech at least even if you fail, you are developing valuable skills that can be used elsewhere.
Rather: Currently in tech in the USA ...
Rather: Currently in tech in the USA ...
I'm not really sure that their statement is temporal or regional. With failure in general comes lessons that can be applied to other situations, regardless of anything else.
This assumes we can come back from the failure without major consequences, and we'll still be in a position to leverage the learnings from that failure. I think the OP is pointing to one of those scenarios where that's less likely.
I’m not sure we got the same thing from this essay.
Picking problems is one of the first things mentioned in this essay, and neither soccer-playing nor strawberry-picking seem like fields where there are lots of questions folks haven’t answered yet. (This is not to say that there aren’t interesting questions in agriculture or sports in general!)
Picking a field that’s zero-sum, where there are already 100 workaholic geniuses pursuing the only possible positive outcomes (eg, champions league forward) seems like maybe not the right way to go, and the essay is pretty explicit about this.
Picking problems is one of the first things mentioned in this essay, and neither soccer-playing nor strawberry-picking seem like fields where there are lots of questions folks haven’t answered yet. (This is not to say that there aren’t interesting questions in agriculture or sports in general!)
Picking a field that’s zero-sum, where there are already 100 workaholic geniuses pursuing the only possible positive outcomes (eg, champions league forward) seems like maybe not the right way to go, and the essay is pretty explicit about this.
> It's a dog eat dog world, winners take all and there's no reward for the effort. If you don't win the big prize, you've wasted your life for nothing.
Prizes and rewards are never guaranteed. The only way to be sure you aren't wasting your time is to spend it on something gratifying—in the context of this essay this might be the "excited curiosity that's both the engine and the rudder of great work." You don't need a fallback if your approach isn't outcome oriented.
Prizes and rewards are never guaranteed. The only way to be sure you aren't wasting your time is to spend it on something gratifying—in the context of this essay this might be the "excited curiosity that's both the engine and the rudder of great work." You don't need a fallback if your approach isn't outcome oriented.
Honestly I didn't think it was well put at all. A vast number of words for very little content, and what content can be distilled is useful to approximately nobody. I've never known a person who needed this advice.
If you're exceptional in some niche you don't need the advice (if it can be called that). If you aren't, you can be your best and thrive if you are motivated, in which case this is similarly unhelpful. In the final case, if you aren't intrinsically motivated to do 'great work' then you won't.
If you're exceptional in some niche you don't need the advice (if it can be called that). If you aren't, you can be your best and thrive if you are motivated, in which case this is similarly unhelpful. In the final case, if you aren't intrinsically motivated to do 'great work' then you won't.
I think part of the point of it is to assure people working on niche problems that embody some of the qualities of what pg is describing as great work. It’s easy to look at the shiny zeitgeist and feel a lot of self doubt if you’re off working on something few outside the niche seem to understand. I’m not sure if this an advice piece as much as an encouragement piece to those readers going through those trenches.
[deleted]
> So exception handling: if you invest a lot of effort into something make sure you get to reap some rewards even if you're one of the 99 guys that doesn't get to pick the strawberries.
How does this work in the world of business where 99% fail
Should I not even try?
How does this work in the world of business where 99% fail
Should I not even try?
Example - try to launch a startup as a technical founder. If it fails, you can still get a coding job and do ok.
Example of what not to do - try becoming a pro poker player. If you fail, you have no marketable skills to fall back on.
Example of what not to do - try becoming a pro poker player. If you fail, you have no marketable skills to fall back on.
Many professional poker players transition into quant based roles. They’re great at assessing risk and objective decision making.
> How does this work in the world of business where 99% fail
I used to know this grumpy old guy who had a simple explanation for that statistic:
It doesn't mean that, if you start a business, you have a 99% chance of failure. It means that, out of everyone who starts a business, 99% of founders are guaranteed to fail, and 1% of founders are guaranteed to succeed.
The trick, I think, is to become the kind of person who can succeed at starting a business — and then start a business.
I used to know this grumpy old guy who had a simple explanation for that statistic:
It doesn't mean that, if you start a business, you have a 99% chance of failure. It means that, out of everyone who starts a business, 99% of founders are guaranteed to fail, and 1% of founders are guaranteed to succeed.
The trick, I think, is to become the kind of person who can succeed at starting a business — and then start a business.
Exactly.
My cousin tried to become a twitch streamer. He is an incredible gamer and did some competitive gaming in shooter tournaments back in the day. He's also very funny and charismatic.
He became interested in hacking minecraft pushed some of the boundaries of what you could do in the modding/hacking scene.
Despite his efforts, things never really took off and ended up heading off to college like the rest of us.
My cousin tried to become a twitch streamer. He is an incredible gamer and did some competitive gaming in shooter tournaments back in the day. He's also very funny and charismatic.
He became interested in hacking minecraft pushed some of the boundaries of what you could do in the modding/hacking scene.
Despite his efforts, things never really took off and ended up heading off to college like the rest of us.
[deleted]
It was mentioned, the striving for the best bit, but may have been me reading in between the lines.
The little bits in the article really resonate with me, in particular what I spot in my field (software dev / distributed systems) is that at high level there looks like many great solutions exist, but when you look deeper in you see that many of them are inelegant, and only reason they weren’t done better was because no one actually spent time on that particular minute thing. it likely got implemented as part of a bigger patch and still deemed “good enough”.
I theorise that many fields are similar if you look deep enough
The little bits in the article really resonate with me, in particular what I spot in my field (software dev / distributed systems) is that at high level there looks like many great solutions exist, but when you look deeper in you see that many of them are inelegant, and only reason they weren’t done better was because no one actually spent time on that particular minute thing. it likely got implemented as part of a bigger patch and still deemed “good enough”.
I theorise that many fields are similar if you look deep enough
For every person doing great work of the sort he describes - original and impactful - there often needs to be several talented people helping to execute towards the newly discovered goal. He hints at this when he mentions the need to manage on certain types of projects. So what of all those talented craftsmen helping get the idea done? Working a job, hard enough to squeeze away time towards significant side projects (if one still desires to maintain good health and relations with family)? Are they suckers? Should they phone it in at work to leave time for their side hustle? What if trying hard at their main job is more impactful? This is the paradox of startup advice. It’s good advice for those aiming to do original work. But it turns its nose up at the kind of work that is a vital ingredient towards achieving great things. And I think Cal Newports advice is more practical in this sense - cultivating craft and autonomy within any role can be equally satisfying and is way more practical for a lot of people.
That said, I still really like PG’s advice for how to think about being original, and I suppose I shouldn’t expect someone trying to convince more people to become founders to be completely even handed about assessing or recommending other kinds of meaningful impactful work.
That said, I still really like PG’s advice for how to think about being original, and I suppose I shouldn’t expect someone trying to convince more people to become founders to be completely even handed about assessing or recommending other kinds of meaningful impactful work.
As I got older I have a very different take on pg's essays than when I was younger. When I was younger these essays motivated me, as I felt that these essays are written for me. PG seemingly addresses many of his essays to 'very ambitious', 'extremely smart', 'independent thinking' people, and writes about topics to achieve extreme success. When I was younger I believed I am such a person. Now I know that I am smarter than average, has a little bit more ambition than average, but I am probably not THAT special. And it is OK. I can be, and am relatively successful. Without pg's grandious motivational writings.
Nowadays I am not motivated by pg's essays as I am much much more conscious about myself and my motivations. When reading his essays I am much more interested in the rhetoric he uses to convince young people. I became an outsider, a third-party observer when it comes to his essays.
One interesting thing I noticed at the start of the essay is that he starts with a descriptive tone: at the first sentence he does not assume that I, as a reader want to do 'great work'. "to create a guide that could be used by someone working in any field." But then suddenly he writes this: "The following recipe assumes you're very ambitious." Now suddenly he makes the reader of the essay and the one he gives advice to equivalent.
Ok, my personal opinion on pg's advice: For fairly ambitious people, who has some life experience these essays are fairly trivial. Absolutely not actionable. Most of us will not do 'great work'. Most of his readers will do 'good enough' work, even slightly above-average work. My advice would be that do what fulfills you. Don't aim for great work, aim for good work. If you are lucky your work can even become great. But you can still be happy if it is just good. Also don't sacrifice yourself too much chasing overly ambitious ideas while you are poor. Try to find joy in work that brings you closer to financial independence with much greater chance than pg's romanticized 'great work'.
Nowadays I am not motivated by pg's essays as I am much much more conscious about myself and my motivations. When reading his essays I am much more interested in the rhetoric he uses to convince young people. I became an outsider, a third-party observer when it comes to his essays.
One interesting thing I noticed at the start of the essay is that he starts with a descriptive tone: at the first sentence he does not assume that I, as a reader want to do 'great work'. "to create a guide that could be used by someone working in any field." But then suddenly he writes this: "The following recipe assumes you're very ambitious." Now suddenly he makes the reader of the essay and the one he gives advice to equivalent.
Ok, my personal opinion on pg's advice: For fairly ambitious people, who has some life experience these essays are fairly trivial. Absolutely not actionable. Most of us will not do 'great work'. Most of his readers will do 'good enough' work, even slightly above-average work. My advice would be that do what fulfills you. Don't aim for great work, aim for good work. If you are lucky your work can even become great. But you can still be happy if it is just good. Also don't sacrifice yourself too much chasing overly ambitious ideas while you are poor. Try to find joy in work that brings you closer to financial independence with much greater chance than pg's romanticized 'great work'.
What's the difference between great work and good work? It seems you are trying very hard to be a contrarian ( Which funnily is a trait of older age )
The difference is that great work is achieved by 1 in one million people. Good work can be achieved by one in 1000 people, or one in 100 depending on your definition. You can adjust your definition of good work to your circumstances. The difference is that even if you are much smarter than average you have miniscule chance to achieve the kind of great work pg tells you about. You can have a high chance to achieve good work, if your definition of good work is realistic.
Yeah, I have some contrarian tendencies, always had, but I am not contrarian in every topic and hopefully not contrarian just for the sake of it.
Yeah, I have some contrarian tendencies, always had, but I am not contrarian in every topic and hopefully not contrarian just for the sake of it.
Your definition of good work is so above and beyond that well under one percent can approach the rarified air of your high standards? I don't believe you.
The main problem is that pg does not even try to define what level of success he speaks about. I think he should be more clear and honest about it: Is it the one in a million great work he writes about, or is it the one in 100? These are entirely different stories. Anyway I am afraid he writes about the one in a million kind. And my point is that don't try to optimize for that kind of success, it is better to adjust your approach to your circumstances to have a greater chance of success.
Yeah. His comment is very hard to parse for insight.
One thing that happens the more experienced you get is that more and more of your work seems "not complex"/"too trivial". But then you realize how many people struggle at those trivial things in similar position and realize it's a trait: - implement simple solutions that provide value. - empower others to understand and use your solutions and implement their own. - tackle on more issues that provide the most value (and not necessarily the most complex). - repeat and expand. Do more with less. Make it less or a battle. - help and foster collaboration of heterogeneous actors. - proactively fix projects before they go the wrong way. - etc
It's not about being particular smart or better but finding methodologies that work and being very conscious and intentional about your work.
One thing that happens the more experienced you get is that more and more of your work seems "not complex"/"too trivial". But then you realize how many people struggle at those trivial things in similar position and realize it's a trait: - implement simple solutions that provide value. - empower others to understand and use your solutions and implement their own. - tackle on more issues that provide the most value (and not necessarily the most complex). - repeat and expand. Do more with less. Make it less or a battle. - help and foster collaboration of heterogeneous actors. - proactively fix projects before they go the wrong way. - etc
It's not about being particular smart or better but finding methodologies that work and being very conscious and intentional about your work.
I think your advice is good. And definitely better advice than "you should be very ambitious and dedicate yourself to doing great work". But I think it isn't what the essay is about. The essay assumes that it is talking to a person who has failed to take your good advice. I think that describes a lot of people.
A lot of commenters here seem to have read into this essay that it is saying "you should be this kind of person". But I'm not sure which parts of the text support that perspective. The quote you pulled out certainly doesn't:
> The following recipe assumes you're very ambitious.
It doesn't add ", which you should be" or ", which is the only good way to be" or anything like that.
A lot of commenters here seem to have read into this essay that it is saying "you should be this kind of person". But I'm not sure which parts of the text support that perspective. The quote you pulled out certainly doesn't:
> The following recipe assumes you're very ambitious.
It doesn't add ", which you should be" or ", which is the only good way to be" or anything like that.
> There are a lot of forces that will lead you astray when you're trying to figure out what to work on. Pretentiousness, fashion, fear, money, politics, other people's wishes, eminent frauds. But if you stick to what you find genuinely interesting, you'll be proof against all of them. If you're interested, you're not astray.
Money is an insurmountable objective barrier for most people, and seems it's just slipped into the middle of a list of things that are more likely overcome by merely strengthening one's character.
So this sounds like wealthy person saying "don't concern yourself with money; just follow your heart".
Money is an insurmountable objective barrier for most people, and seems it's just slipped into the middle of a list of things that are more likely overcome by merely strengthening one's character.
So this sounds like wealthy person saying "don't concern yourself with money; just follow your heart".
No, he addresses that. Get a day job. Then do your project on nights and weekends, or else manage your manager into making it part of your job.
The problem with moonlighting a meaningful side project is that any marketing you do will alert HR to the fact you are moonlighting (HR in large corps pay to have employees' social media scanned).
In most cases you'll either be told to stop or in the worst case your employer will claim they own it.
In most cases you'll either be told to stop or in the worst case your employer will claim they own it.
PG did not use the term moonlighting for the fact that you don’t have to.
That is unless you agreed to a contract that forbids from holding multiple jobs.
40h/week paying the bills leaves plenty of free time to do something on the side when you don’t have kids / a family to take care of
That is unless you agreed to a contract that forbids from holding multiple jobs.
40h/week paying the bills leaves plenty of free time to do something on the side when you don’t have kids / a family to take care of
> 40h/week paying the bills leaves plenty of free time to do something on the side when you don’t have kids / a family to take care of
Show of hands: How many others feel this way?
Personally, I can barely muster the energy to do much hacking after a normal job. The only way I've found to do work I've been known for is by blowing off my other responsibilities (sometimes to the annoyance of various people).
Show of hands: How many others feel this way?
Personally, I can barely muster the energy to do much hacking after a normal job. The only way I've found to do work I've been known for is by blowing off my other responsibilities (sometimes to the annoyance of various people).
So sounds like you are one of the lucky folks who is excited and really enjoying their day job that you dont need a challenge after work. I once heard that those who are very stimulated at work actually spend a lot of energy and need cool down "after work". I (like many I know) can't wait to get home after a soul crushing day (at a pretty well paying job) to work on exciting things! Depends on factors that energize and motivate you I guess!
Or, you know, some people don’t want to continue doing the same thing all day. For whatever reason.
There are also people who hate their day job, and after dealing with food, chores, and physical fitness, just want to spend their last waking hour or two relaxing before starting over.
I have also become known for what I do, in the last minutes of odd hours, to the neglect of my responsabilities. While I do "make time", and could probably do so more effectively[1], I certainly do not have "plenty" after 40 hours.
1: One needs downtime, and can't expect perfect utilization even after planning for rest.
1: One needs downtime, and can't expect perfect utilization even after planning for rest.
This isn't the norm in Silicon Valley. Most companies will agree to exceptions to their Assignment of Inventions agreement if you ask, as long as it's not directly competitive.
If you work for a large company anything you do in software is directly competitive.
I understand the concern, but frankly don't think this is the case.
Nobody really cares about you in the org and in the world in general.
There is a legal implication on side projects on everyone's contract -> so the solution here is to just have an alternative profile on social media...
Oh and don't add HR people on your linkedin.
Nobody really cares about you in the org and in the world in general.
There is a legal implication on side projects on everyone's contract -> so the solution here is to just have an alternative profile on social media...
Oh and don't add HR people on your linkedin.
No family or other responsibilities. Also say goodbye to your health. Not widely applicable advice.
This is terrible advice imo. It entirely hinges on being able to work ridiculous hours, which most people just can't do either due to burnout, family, or both.
Program what makes you happy, everyone else is already programming the rest.
Ive been conflicted for 12 years now on what field to pursue. I’m between mechanical engineering because of my interest in materials and aerodynamics (I’d love to do research in this field), and software engineering (I don’t know what I’d do research in, but I like the idea of making tools people use).
I work in IT/light software dev, and I think I’m inclined towards software because that’s where I’ve been building my expertise in, but I’m always thinking of mechanics in my head.
This post made me think that maybe what I should truly follow is mechanics.
I work in IT/light software dev, and I think I’m inclined towards software because that’s where I’ve been building my expertise in, but I’m always thinking of mechanics in my head.
This post made me think that maybe what I should truly follow is mechanics.
Go for it!
No need to choose, you can have both - there is this very nice place where software meets hardware; call it embedded, call it robotics, call it industrial automation; this is the place where software actually gets to interface to physics: read sensors, drive solenoids and motors, make things move and act and do things in the real world.
I got into this business 25 years ago and never left. Still loving every single day.
I got into this business 25 years ago and never left. Still loving every single day.
information, communication and fabrication (see the huge influx of fab labs)
Similar background. I write software for mechanical engineers and enjoy it very much
I quite like to read an article like this from time to time, because it can be motivating when your ambitions are low.
However, I also believe that it can be detrimental and even lead to burn-out or depression if you actually believe that putting in the work, and putting it in in a good way, will lead you to success. This seems like a recipe for disaster.
Is it not more likely that most historically successful people just stumbled on the promising gaps almost by accident? The concepts of "thrownness" and "survivorship bias" might be relevant to look up in this context. Is it possible to train curiosity, ambition, intelligence, passion, perseverance, if you did not grow up with it?
However, I also believe that it can be detrimental and even lead to burn-out or depression if you actually believe that putting in the work, and putting it in in a good way, will lead you to success. This seems like a recipe for disaster.
Is it not more likely that most historically successful people just stumbled on the promising gaps almost by accident? The concepts of "thrownness" and "survivorship bias" might be relevant to look up in this context. Is it possible to train curiosity, ambition, intelligence, passion, perseverance, if you did not grow up with it?
I think that it shouldn't lead to burnout if you keep the "play" or "interest" aspect. It's not "I have to find something at the frontier, so I have to pursue this until I get there." It's "I'm interested in this, and so I'm pursuing it because I want to."
> Is it not more likely that most historically successful people just stumbled on the promising gaps almost by accident?
Yes and no. Yes, they stumbled on a promising gap by accident. No, it's not pure chance. Their odds go way up by being out there stumbling around, looking at things they find interesting.
> Is it not more likely that most historically successful people just stumbled on the promising gaps almost by accident?
Yes and no. Yes, they stumbled on a promising gap by accident. No, it's not pure chance. Their odds go way up by being out there stumbling around, looking at things they find interesting.
> if you actually believe that putting in the work, and putting it in in a good way, will lead you to success.
What's the point of motivation of you don't believe what you do matters? The antitode to these kind of arguments is always to bring it to a closer level. Can you control how clean your house is with work? Would hard work help you tend to a farm better? Where does it stop helping you?
What's the point of motivation of you don't believe what you do matters? The antitode to these kind of arguments is always to bring it to a closer level. Can you control how clean your house is with work? Would hard work help you tend to a farm better? Where does it stop helping you?
>Is it not more likely that most historically successful people just stumbled on the promising gaps almost by accident?
to some degree, but it's not like you can luck your way into writing an app by slapping the keyboard. The degree of success might differ, but generally there's some kind of barrier of entry in terms of the work to learn the base skill needed. Right place at the right time is a thing, but plenty of people miss out because they don't even try at all
to some degree, but it's not like you can luck your way into writing an app by slapping the keyboard. The degree of success might differ, but generally there's some kind of barrier of entry in terms of the work to learn the base skill needed. Right place at the right time is a thing, but plenty of people miss out because they don't even try at all
> to some degree, but it's not like you can luck your way into writing an app by slapping the keyboard
I wish some of the people I've worked with knew this
I wish some of the people I've worked with knew this
Anecdotally: I think of myself as one of those people who is by nature driven to do great work. Tbd if it happens. But in my life I see most other people as having written off almost everything I find interesting, all the places where it seems like there is great work to be done if one digs hard enough.
It seems obvious that someone like me, who believes this and is looking and working everywhere, will be the type of person who does the great work, rather than someone who thinks that, ah well, it's probably an accident that others found things and they didn't. Because, seriously.. The gaps are everywhere! in everything! Some of us can scarcely go a day without having an idea that seems to have huge potential and it's a question of deciding what to focus on and how far to go. The problem is never thinking of something that could be great work to do... it's picking which one.
So basically, strong disagree, it's no accident at all.
That said the main reason everyone is writing off all the potential is, yes, lack of ambition, lack of curiosity, lack of perseverance, etc. Can those habits be unlearned? Dunno. Probably. I think most people are 'followers' at heart, and to imagine doing something truly novel is to imagine, ultimately, not trying to do what they're told, not trying to be safe. And the thought gives them intense anxiety so they explain a hundred reasons why they're right, why nothing can be done. Well, from my perspective that's just a matter of perspective.
It seems obvious that someone like me, who believes this and is looking and working everywhere, will be the type of person who does the great work, rather than someone who thinks that, ah well, it's probably an accident that others found things and they didn't. Because, seriously.. The gaps are everywhere! in everything! Some of us can scarcely go a day without having an idea that seems to have huge potential and it's a question of deciding what to focus on and how far to go. The problem is never thinking of something that could be great work to do... it's picking which one.
So basically, strong disagree, it's no accident at all.
That said the main reason everyone is writing off all the potential is, yes, lack of ambition, lack of curiosity, lack of perseverance, etc. Can those habits be unlearned? Dunno. Probably. I think most people are 'followers' at heart, and to imagine doing something truly novel is to imagine, ultimately, not trying to do what they're told, not trying to be safe. And the thought gives them intense anxiety so they explain a hundred reasons why they're right, why nothing can be done. Well, from my perspective that's just a matter of perspective.
As usual, Ancient Greeks had it figured out already. Aristoteles wrote: "make war to have pace. Do business to enjoy leisure". That's the natural proclivity of 99% human beings. The other 1%, for whatever internal reason, does work for work's sake, and is often pushing civilization forward.
People with high-paying careers rarely choose to radically reduce their work hours after achieving financial security. I don't think the idea of doing great work often enters the equation.
> People with high-paying careers rarely choose to radically reduce their work hours after achieving financial security.
Do you have any data to support that? I'd actually expect them to fully retire in their fourties or fifties, once they no longer need more money.
Do you have any data to support that? I'd actually expect them to fully retire in their fourties or fifties, once they no longer need more money.
Perhaps I have worded my argument somewhat too poetically. You say that you are driven to do great work _by nature_. That is what I would call "by accident", as you had very little say in that nature.
Pushing the argument a bit further: When you are so lucky to have what it takes to do great things, would you be able to _not_ do great things?
Pushing the argument a bit further: When you are so lucky to have what it takes to do great things, would you be able to _not_ do great things?
You really shouldn't write a long post on doing great work without mentioning teamwork. He seems to say great work is done in the garage or garden shed, which has been false for centuries at this point.
He mentions that for certain projects you’ll need to be good at managing others, or you shouldn’t attempt them at all.
Unless you live in any of the houses right outside the Apple campus. The single most shocking thing to me when I visited for the first time was that the entire area including right outside the visitor center is still dominated by these upsetting 60s bungalows. Ironically up in Redmond they're putting them to shame in terms of development.
Teamwork was mentioned in the post
I think your comment is an underappreciated one.
The article, to me, seems exceedingly preferential to the "tortured/overworked genius" method of innovation, and by now I'm personally tired of seeing that trope fall on its face.
The best... anything gets built by many people. Of course it takes a VC to try and tell us about the "exceptional" people at the top who make it all possible, but the number of times PG points out how instrumental Jessica was to the early days of YC disproves the very trope he's trying to puff up here.
The article, to me, seems exceedingly preferential to the "tortured/overworked genius" method of innovation, and by now I'm personally tired of seeing that trope fall on its face.
The best... anything gets built by many people. Of course it takes a VC to try and tell us about the "exceptional" people at the top who make it all possible, but the number of times PG points out how instrumental Jessica was to the early days of YC disproves the very trope he's trying to puff up here.
My thoughts as well. He himself went ALL the way through the educational system broadly and were into arts and so on, so did his friend and collaborator Morris. Granted, PG has seen tech talent and success unfold on a scale that few will experience, which gives him a unique perspective. I'm still left wondering what role he attributes having close friends like he did, peers, mentors, community and collaboration...
I agree with almost everything said here, especially the value of curiosity and experimentation.
A few thoughts:
- Every project is at its most exciting right in the beginning when it's new, and toward the end where the end is in sight. The trick is staying engaged and interested in the long, flat middle where progress comes in small dribs and there are frequent setbacks.
- Another point I wish the essay made is that many projects reach a point at which it is best to reveal it to others. That is one of the most scary parts, of exposing oneself to criticism and doubt. It's what petrifies so many people from even starting. But if you embrace it not as the end, but as part of the process and a natural part of the evolution of the idea, it can itself be turned into a motivator. It's your first milestone. You WANT to get to that point, as a checkpoint. Seek out the feedback, adjust, and press on.
- In fact, more should be said about the emotional part of doing projects. The love (or lust), the fear, the frustration, the doubt, and yes, the joy. All those human emotions are part of doing any work. We can run away from it and try to avoid it, or realize it comes with the territory.
- Another thing that comes with experience and age is knowing what to say NO to, and avoid getting pulled away into the tributaries. It's easy to get distracted by side quests and to engage in bike-shedding. In fact, sometimes it's necessary for one's mental health. But it is best to keep an eye on the main goal that got us excited about the idea in the first place. Knowing when the break is over and it is time to get back to main path is a trick that seems to only come with age.
- Lastly, there is great value in brevity (this is not a critique of PG's excellent essay :-) Imagine meeting a friend and they ask what you are working on. You tell them a long, complicated story, and their eyes glaze over. Next person, you learn to shorten it. Same result. You iterate. Soon, you've boiled it down to a short sentence you can rattle off without thinking. That's the nugget of the idea. The through-line. It's the blurb on the back of the book, the opening line of the website, and the executive summary of the grant application or pitch deck. At some point, all works need to be explained to someone else, before they become Great Works.
A few thoughts:
- Every project is at its most exciting right in the beginning when it's new, and toward the end where the end is in sight. The trick is staying engaged and interested in the long, flat middle where progress comes in small dribs and there are frequent setbacks.
- Another point I wish the essay made is that many projects reach a point at which it is best to reveal it to others. That is one of the most scary parts, of exposing oneself to criticism and doubt. It's what petrifies so many people from even starting. But if you embrace it not as the end, but as part of the process and a natural part of the evolution of the idea, it can itself be turned into a motivator. It's your first milestone. You WANT to get to that point, as a checkpoint. Seek out the feedback, adjust, and press on.
- In fact, more should be said about the emotional part of doing projects. The love (or lust), the fear, the frustration, the doubt, and yes, the joy. All those human emotions are part of doing any work. We can run away from it and try to avoid it, or realize it comes with the territory.
- Another thing that comes with experience and age is knowing what to say NO to, and avoid getting pulled away into the tributaries. It's easy to get distracted by side quests and to engage in bike-shedding. In fact, sometimes it's necessary for one's mental health. But it is best to keep an eye on the main goal that got us excited about the idea in the first place. Knowing when the break is over and it is time to get back to main path is a trick that seems to only come with age.
- Lastly, there is great value in brevity (this is not a critique of PG's excellent essay :-) Imagine meeting a friend and they ask what you are working on. You tell them a long, complicated story, and their eyes glaze over. Next person, you learn to shorten it. Same result. You iterate. Soon, you've boiled it down to a short sentence you can rattle off without thinking. That's the nugget of the idea. The through-line. It's the blurb on the back of the book, the opening line of the website, and the executive summary of the grant application or pitch deck. At some point, all works need to be explained to someone else, before they become Great Works.
Hmmm…
> At 7 it may seem excitingly ambitious to build huge things out of Lego, then at 14 to teach yourself calculus, till at 21 you're starting to explore unanswered questions in physics. But always preserve excitingness.
I’m 53 and some of my greatest joys still come from well executed Lego builds. Wonder if I’m stuck in a rut :/
> At 7 it may seem excitingly ambitious to build huge things out of Lego, then at 14 to teach yourself calculus, till at 21 you're starting to explore unanswered questions in physics. But always preserve excitingness.
I’m 53 and some of my greatest joys still come from well executed Lego builds. Wonder if I’m stuck in a rut :/
Nah. I literally have a LEGO brick tattoo. Never let that die.
I “rediscovered” LEGO in my early 30’s. Turns out when you’re an adult, LEGO isn’t that expensive and you can just buy a set. Walk into a store and walk out with a brand new set!
It’s an amazing and dangerous freedom. 3 short years later and I have more sets than space.
Now all I need is the time and space I had as a kid to treat LEGO as a tool for invention. Build stuff out of imagination, not a blueprint. Then again, as an adult, I could also get a bunch of power tools and “play with LEGOs” without using actual LEGOs … hmmmm
It’s an amazing and dangerous freedom. 3 short years later and I have more sets than space.
Now all I need is the time and space I had as a kid to treat LEGO as a tool for invention. Build stuff out of imagination, not a blueprint. Then again, as an adult, I could also get a bunch of power tools and “play with LEGOs” without using actual LEGOs … hmmmm
I used to be thrilled with big sets because they were… well, big.
Now, I find Lego building relaxing with the occasional delight at a technique the master builders came up with to create some sort of texture or shape using those bricks.
Now, I find Lego building relaxing with the occasional delight at a technique the master builders came up with to create some sort of texture or shape using those bricks.
new legos are the devil because all the creative thinking is done behind a desk at lego. (not my thought, just repeating)
Some of my greatest joys are cooking a meal and doing the lawn. They are so much different than writing software. There's a start, an end, and a clear set of steps in between where you can easily see your progress. When you're done, you can step back and admire your work, and show it to others.
Do you ever refactor your LEGO builds into new builds? Do you prefer kits or building something of your own design from generic sets?
Do you ever refactor your LEGO builds into new builds? Do you prefer kits or building something of your own design from generic sets?
I like to start with a deck of my LEGO design for the pre-seed round.
I feel like I’m doing my greatest project at the moment.
I enjoy PGs work but I’m not a fanboy.
However in this case it’s uncanny that the path of this work I am doing is precisely as he has described here.
I kinda knew already I was making something special but it’s almost like PG has been leaning over my shoulder watching my thinking and watching my work process over years.
In fact this article is “great work” because actually distilling the essence of, and describing, great work would have been incredibly hard.
The article describes the process it must have taken to write the article. Kinda recursive.
I enjoy PGs work but I’m not a fanboy.
However in this case it’s uncanny that the path of this work I am doing is precisely as he has described here.
I kinda knew already I was making something special but it’s almost like PG has been leaning over my shoulder watching my thinking and watching my work process over years.
In fact this article is “great work” because actually distilling the essence of, and describing, great work would have been incredibly hard.
The article describes the process it must have taken to write the article. Kinda recursive.
I feel the same way, and I think it's really nice read for someone who's a decade or so into their career and has been head down chasing their interests im obscurity. The privelege of doing that is its own reward but it's easy to see why this approach leads to great outcomes.
P.S.Why do you feel the need to say you're not a fanboy? Are you assuming that a positive statement about his work implies that you are and that you afraid of that impression ?
P.S.Why do you feel the need to say you're not a fanboy? Are you assuming that a positive statement about his work implies that you are and that you afraid of that impression ?
also:
- Don't have any chronic diseases or pain that will distract or dull your attention
- Have a stable source of income or enough wealth to let you try and fail at a lot of things
- Have stable family and friends
- Don't have optimism beaten out of you at a young age
etc
- Don't have any chronic diseases or pain that will distract or dull your attention
- Have a stable source of income or enough wealth to let you try and fail at a lot of things
- Have stable family and friends
- Don't have optimism beaten out of you at a young age
etc
I am amazed how many people take their fortunes for granted and then preach about how they "worked harder than anyone else hence deserve much more than the others". You have to be incredibly lucky to get to that point. In case of chronic illness (like brain fog) you are pretty much destined to fail.
I’m also amazed how people will take a self-improvement article like this, and take it so personally. Like yes, pg was lucky to have a lot of things work out for them, but that doesn’t mean his advice here (which encompasses more than just “work hard”) is invalid for everyone just because it’s invalid for some people.
It's a post-factum rationalization of personal experience possibly mixed with some anecdata.
Fine as a motivational material but that's all this is.
Fine as a motivational material but that's all this is.
I get what you’re saying, and I agree that there’s a survival bias for all winners. But the pendulum swings too far if you believe you can’t learn anything at all from winners.
Can you say that, for all winners of any field, there’s no correlation between the winners and the losers that is not attributable to luck?
Can you say that, for all winners of any field, there’s no correlation between the winners and the losers that is not attributable to luck?
I think there are probably some persistent differences between the superachievers and the normals but I am very skeptical in the ability of the former to teach (and of the latter to learn from the former).
Oh, this is an interesting point that I think I agree with on some level.
Are you saying superachievers can’t teach others to be superachievers, or are you saying that superachievers can’t teach non achievers to be achievers
Are you saying superachievers can’t teach others to be superachievers, or are you saying that superachievers can’t teach non achievers to be achievers
It would be nice to see Paul write more about the privileges he has enjoyed.
[deleted]
Yep, get yourself a bs job first while implicitly getting yourself stroke, cancer and diabetes from it to pay for utilities and a few gallons of water per month and only then do great work.
If 1000 people read this and only 100 of them meet your criteria, and it's good advice, than he would have helped 100 people.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here
As usual, this is both interesting but also so generalizing as to get frustrating in places. But it’s clearly well-meaning and earnest, which makes it easier to tolerate some of its annoyingly breezy certainty.
Then there’s this:
> Religions are collections of cherished but mistaken principles. So anything that can be described either literally or metaphorically as a religion will have valuable unexplored ideas in its shadow. Copernicus and Darwin both made discoveries of this type.
> [18] The principles defining a religion have to be mistaken. Otherwise anyone might adopt them, and there would be nothing to distinguish the adherents of the religion from everyone else.
First, anything can be either literally or metaphorically described as a religion, so that makes this an empty principle, since it either covers nothing or everything or both. (“Cheesecake is my religion.” Etc.)
Second, the footnote is literally impenetrable to me. Honestly. I can discern no coherent meaning. That everyone could adopt a principle or belief does not mean it must be false just because everyone uniformly and indistinguishably believes it and therefore nobody disbelieves it. Whether people can be distinguished from one another with respect to some belief (say, that in base 10 arithmetic that 1+1=2) has nothing to do with the truth vel non of that belief.
And honestly, I am genuinely struggling to fathom a mind that could not only believe that statement but believe it so deeply that they breezily announce it as obviously true. So it’s funny that this is the next paragraph:
> What are people in your field religious about, in the sense of being too attached to some principle that might not be as self-evident as they think?
The only, and I mean, literally only, interpretation that I can come up with is that PG is using “religion” and “religious” in enough different ways that when he mixes them, as it seems to do here, he doesn’t notice. Or he means them ONLY in the sense of “too attached to some principle that might not be as self-evident as they think.” But I have a very strong suspicion that he is definitely not using them only in that way.
Then there’s this:
> Religions are collections of cherished but mistaken principles. So anything that can be described either literally or metaphorically as a religion will have valuable unexplored ideas in its shadow. Copernicus and Darwin both made discoveries of this type.
> [18] The principles defining a religion have to be mistaken. Otherwise anyone might adopt them, and there would be nothing to distinguish the adherents of the religion from everyone else.
First, anything can be either literally or metaphorically described as a religion, so that makes this an empty principle, since it either covers nothing or everything or both. (“Cheesecake is my religion.” Etc.)
Second, the footnote is literally impenetrable to me. Honestly. I can discern no coherent meaning. That everyone could adopt a principle or belief does not mean it must be false just because everyone uniformly and indistinguishably believes it and therefore nobody disbelieves it. Whether people can be distinguished from one another with respect to some belief (say, that in base 10 arithmetic that 1+1=2) has nothing to do with the truth vel non of that belief.
And honestly, I am genuinely struggling to fathom a mind that could not only believe that statement but believe it so deeply that they breezily announce it as obviously true. So it’s funny that this is the next paragraph:
> What are people in your field religious about, in the sense of being too attached to some principle that might not be as self-evident as they think?
The only, and I mean, literally only, interpretation that I can come up with is that PG is using “religion” and “religious” in enough different ways that when he mixes them, as it seems to do here, he doesn’t notice. Or he means them ONLY in the sense of “too attached to some principle that might not be as self-evident as they think.” But I have a very strong suspicion that he is definitely not using them only in that way.
>But it’s clearly well-meaning and earnest
When you are famous, people give you the benefit of the doubt.
When you are small fries, you are blogspam.
When you are famous, people give you the benefit of the doubt.
When you are small fries, you are blogspam.
It’s more a tone issue. He’s a skilled enough writer to come across as sincere and well-meaning. Whether he is or not I have no clue, I don’t know the man.
Traditionally, footnotes are straightforward explanations of terms or passages. Tech writers, in their grandiosity, have perverted them to contain randomass tangents that no one really cares about.
Footnotes are mainly straightforward-enough glosses and references, but there have always been digressions (and quite often sniping) in there too. The C19 has some real specimens.
Whereas legal opinions use them either as a citation dump (known as “collecting cases”), as a place to bracket issues that are not being decided, or as a place to put a substantive response to a separate opinion in the case (if you’re an appellate court).
I used to interpret PG's self-assured tone as wisdom. Over the years though, I've come to realize what it actually is: hubris.
Not to get too memey but: why not both?
> annoyingly breezy certainty.
I may have to steal that phrase (:
I may have to steal that phrase (:
> [18] The principles defining a religion have to be mistaken. Otherwise anyone might adopt them, and there would be nothing to distinguish the adherents of the religion from everyone else.
I think what's going on here is the theory that the purpose of religion is to create a trusted in-group separated from the out-group, with rules that make it difficult to casually join. [1] If you start from that premise, PG's footnote makes sense. But this ignores the fact that the largest religions really want as many members as possible and would be delighted if everyone followed their principles.
[1] See for instance: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/24/there-are-rules-here/
I think what's going on here is the theory that the purpose of religion is to create a trusted in-group separated from the out-group, with rules that make it difficult to casually join. [1] If you start from that premise, PG's footnote makes sense. But this ignores the fact that the largest religions really want as many members as possible and would be delighted if everyone followed their principles.
[1] See for instance: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/24/there-are-rules-here/
This is actually helpful. So, he’s saying, religions really exist for this social function of group formation/identity. Thus, we know that the principles they proclaim, which tend to be universal claims of truth, are wrong, since if those principles were true, they would defeat the real purpose of religion. Therefore, one good way to find ideas to explore is to question the principles or bracket them and see what you can do without them.
That does make what he’s saying there cohere better. Of course, what he’s saying turns entirely on the ambiguity he’s playing on (which I suspected): religion in the sense of concrete historical/social human practices and religion in the sense of identifying strongly with and thus not questioning your principles. Never a good idea to hang your hat on the coatrack of suggestive language games. Or, you know, outrageous bullshit.
I almost think it makes it worse, finding a coherent meaning—-which is so silly.
That does make what he’s saying there cohere better. Of course, what he’s saying turns entirely on the ambiguity he’s playing on (which I suspected): religion in the sense of concrete historical/social human practices and religion in the sense of identifying strongly with and thus not questioning your principles. Never a good idea to hang your hat on the coatrack of suggestive language games. Or, you know, outrageous bullshit.
I almost think it makes it worse, finding a coherent meaning—-which is so silly.
Yeah I generally enjoyed this essay overall but also bumped on that and couldn't parse the footnote. It's not just you :)
I'm surprised how many negative responses this essay has received. If you read it as prescriptive, "Do these steps and you will achieve greatness," then yeah obviously he is skimping on the "why" of it all. But as he says at the very top, this essay is actually descriptive. This is an analysis of how great work comes about, based on looking at many cases of "it." Your own mileage may vary.
For my part, I found it perfectly thought provoking; not a strict roadmap to follow, but a set of observations against which to measure my own experiences and ideas, and see if I can't improve on what works for me. I appreciate anyone who is trying to dig deeper into how human beings can better themselves and create meaning in our indifferent universe.
For my part, I found it perfectly thought provoking; not a strict roadmap to follow, but a set of observations against which to measure my own experiences and ideas, and see if I can't improve on what works for me. I appreciate anyone who is trying to dig deeper into how human beings can better themselves and create meaning in our indifferent universe.
One thing mostly not addressed is just how hard it can be to receive social opprobrium for pushing against things that are obviously broken but act as important foundation for current social reality. Even small amounts of contrarianism can get surprising amounts of not just overt push back, but social undermining over seemingly trivial things.
This creates a different kind of blindness to 'What you Can't Say' and 'Schlep Blindness' but rather a filtering of most smart contrarians into fields where lots of smart people bicker over table scraps of prestige and the few interesting problems that are legible and funded to work on. Work on seemingly low status problems and you won't have to waste your time competing.
This creates a different kind of blindness to 'What you Can't Say' and 'Schlep Blindness' but rather a filtering of most smart contrarians into fields where lots of smart people bicker over table scraps of prestige and the few interesting problems that are legible and funded to work on. Work on seemingly low status problems and you won't have to waste your time competing.
"Luck by definition you can't do anything about, so we can ignore that."
Is there value in differentiating Luck from Chance? Perhaps Luck only pertains to attributes of you and your life you cannot change. Such as your DNA and your life before you can leave home.
Chance can apply to the life path you determine for yourself. Perhaps, unknown to you, doing great work depends on a Chance encounter with a potential mentor in the field you are pursuing. You can increase your Chance of meeting that mentor by living in an area that has a high concentration of people in your field of interest. That Chance encounter is still a matter of Luck, but requires 'less' Luck than if you lived on a different continent.
Is there value in differentiating Luck from Chance? Perhaps Luck only pertains to attributes of you and your life you cannot change. Such as your DNA and your life before you can leave home.
Chance can apply to the life path you determine for yourself. Perhaps, unknown to you, doing great work depends on a Chance encounter with a potential mentor in the field you are pursuing. You can increase your Chance of meeting that mentor by living in an area that has a high concentration of people in your field of interest. That Chance encounter is still a matter of Luck, but requires 'less' Luck than if you lived on a different continent.
This is one of the great writeup!
In case you want to listen it instead of reading it like me, you can do so by following command, it creates a audio file (named greatwork) which you can play:
wget -qO- http://paulgraham.com/greatwork.html | sed -e '/<script/,/<\/script>/d' -e 's/<[^>]*>//g; s/\ \;/ /g; s/\&\;/\&/g; s/\<\;/</g; s/\>\;/>/g' | say --progress -o greatwork
please note, this is tested on macOS only.
In case you want to listen it instead of reading it like me, you can do so by following command, it creates a audio file (named greatwork) which you can play:
wget -qO- http://paulgraham.com/greatwork.html | sed -e '/<script/,/<\/script>/d' -e 's/<[^>]*>//g; s/\ \;/ /g; s/\&\;/\&/g; s/\<\;/</g; s/\>\;/>/g' | say --progress -o greatwork
please note, this is tested on macOS only.
If you’re looking for something that scales this feature, you might love Matter (https://hq.getmatter.com/). It has instant article text-to-speech via a simple chrome extension & a web + iOS app - along with %-read tracking, ability to start playing audio from any word, etc.
(Not affiliated, just a happy user.)
(Not affiliated, just a happy user.)
thanks for sharing, Matter looks promising I'll give it a try.
There's so little great work done that the path is bound to be idiosyncratic. I suspect that a lot of a great work sneaks up on people. Sort of like great love. It's that jolt of inspiration where you see something new. Like really new. If you're lucky, the vision is very very clear. If you're unlucky, you might have to spend an enormous amount of time clarifying it such that it can be communicated to others. This implies there's a lot of great work that dies along with the person who did it. I find that very easy to believe.
The thing I try to keep in mind most when dealing with these kinds of blog posts is that something that must be helpful to a majority of its audience will inevitably lose a lot of the value it can provide to each individual.
It is a bit weirdly generalized
I kept trying to read between the lines for the domain PG is known for and writes most frequently about — startups
But a lot of the writing seems to apply to achievements in math, science, art, and literature
I think the latter four domains have a lot more in common with each other than they have in common with startups
And PG seems to write and claim expertise largely in startups, although certainly he has experience in many areas and is well read
So it would be nice to address that, otherwise it does seem less useful
I’d agree the first part of the essay generalizes, but have my doubts about many points deeper in the essay
I kept trying to read between the lines for the domain PG is known for and writes most frequently about — startups
But a lot of the writing seems to apply to achievements in math, science, art, and literature
I think the latter four domains have a lot more in common with each other than they have in common with startups
And PG seems to write and claim expertise largely in startups, although certainly he has experience in many areas and is well read
So it would be nice to address that, otherwise it does seem less useful
I’d agree the first part of the essay generalizes, but have my doubts about many points deeper in the essay
Just to elaborate on what bugged me about this essay -- probably the most important part for many domains is a single sentence, the last one in this paragraph:
Most of us can benefit from collaborating with colleagues, but some projects require people on a larger scale, and starting one of those is not for everyone. If you want to run a project like that, you'll have to become a manager, and managing well takes aptitude and interest like any other kind of work. If you don't have them, there is no middle path: you must either force yourself to learn management as a second language, or avoid such projects
"You must force yourself to learn management" is not very useful
It's basically like saying "go run a marathon in a world record time"
---
And I'd say that's the KEY difference between companies and math/art/literature
The former are necessarily collaborative -- YC even says that PREFER co-founders; they reject solo founders
Whereas math/art/literature has more of a solo feel, and so does this essay, despite the fact that PG is accomplished more in the collaborative domains
Science these days is probably more like a company, more collaborative. A hundred years ago it was probably closer to math
So I would have preferred to read about one kind of endeavor or the other; as is, it's something of a mish-mash that's not too actionable
It's more of a "cheering section" for people working mostly alone, not really practical advice
---
That said, I do appreciate his turns of phrase (going diagonally across the tracks), and the metaphor of reaching the edge of knowledge, it fractally expanding, etc.
(It's probably more that I've already gotten these ideas from his previous essays, which are mostly great)
Most of us can benefit from collaborating with colleagues, but some projects require people on a larger scale, and starting one of those is not for everyone. If you want to run a project like that, you'll have to become a manager, and managing well takes aptitude and interest like any other kind of work. If you don't have them, there is no middle path: you must either force yourself to learn management as a second language, or avoid such projects
"You must force yourself to learn management" is not very useful
It's basically like saying "go run a marathon in a world record time"
---
And I'd say that's the KEY difference between companies and math/art/literature
The former are necessarily collaborative -- YC even says that PREFER co-founders; they reject solo founders
Whereas math/art/literature has more of a solo feel, and so does this essay, despite the fact that PG is accomplished more in the collaborative domains
Science these days is probably more like a company, more collaborative. A hundred years ago it was probably closer to math
So I would have preferred to read about one kind of endeavor or the other; as is, it's something of a mish-mash that's not too actionable
It's more of a "cheering section" for people working mostly alone, not really practical advice
---
That said, I do appreciate his turns of phrase (going diagonally across the tracks), and the metaphor of reaching the edge of knowledge, it fractally expanding, etc.
(It's probably more that I've already gotten these ideas from his previous essays, which are mostly great)
Where do you go for specific advice, upwork?
Prioritize output early.
You can't do great without slogging through mediocre. Don't be afraid to suck. Don't stop at the first failure.
And don't worry about originality. Creativity comes from doing. Experience begets ideas.
You can't do great without slogging through mediocre. Don't be afraid to suck. Don't stop at the first failure.
And don't worry about originality. Creativity comes from doing. Experience begets ideas.
I think it's important to note there are two types of "great work"
1) Where you have work expertise that is objectively higher than your peers or in the top percentile of your industry due to natural skills or experience or both.
2) Where you have do not have top-percentile expertise, but are hitting the limits of your capabilities. Maxing out your performance is the only way to know your limits and get better. Sometimes you just can't improve, but if you're doing your best, that's great work too.
I have my own business and while I think there are people out there who could do it better, everyday I'm putting in my best and learning a lot. What more could I realistically ask for?
1) Where you have work expertise that is objectively higher than your peers or in the top percentile of your industry due to natural skills or experience or both.
2) Where you have do not have top-percentile expertise, but are hitting the limits of your capabilities. Maxing out your performance is the only way to know your limits and get better. Sometimes you just can't improve, but if you're doing your best, that's great work too.
I have my own business and while I think there are people out there who could do it better, everyday I'm putting in my best and learning a lot. What more could I realistically ask for?
The third type is where you just got lucky. For example a one hit wonder musician or writer. Your baseline abilities aren’t that good but you hit the high side of variance.
fourth type is when someone else does the great work and you get the credit
That's so true, why bother doing great work, which is a lot of work, when you can get the credit of many people doing it?
That's what Elon Musk has done since the start of his career and it has worked pretty well for him. For that you need to be a really good hype man because it's objectively true that great work that nobody knows about is pure waste. You need to be rich because in the US it's assumed that this means something awesome about you personally. You need to be the one who always announce the news on Twitter, you don't even have to lie, your strongest fan will assume you did all the work. Like they believe he is the founder of Tesla. Like they believe he is the real life Tony Stark. Like they believe that he, not the actual rocket scientists working at Tesla, design all those rockets. Like they believe that he invented the hyperloop when he renamed the vactrain concept from hundred years ago and then couldn't build it because it's bullshit. Like they believe he will save humanity by helping us anytime soon to escape Earth that people like him are destroying.
I don't really care about Elon Musk. The guy is a mix between a Tech Robber Baron and an emotionally immature 14 years old who has read too much science fiction. And remember more the fiction than the science.
OTOH his fan club is a fascinating experiment on how a cult of personality develops in public and in real time.
That's what Elon Musk has done since the start of his career and it has worked pretty well for him. For that you need to be a really good hype man because it's objectively true that great work that nobody knows about is pure waste. You need to be rich because in the US it's assumed that this means something awesome about you personally. You need to be the one who always announce the news on Twitter, you don't even have to lie, your strongest fan will assume you did all the work. Like they believe he is the founder of Tesla. Like they believe he is the real life Tony Stark. Like they believe that he, not the actual rocket scientists working at Tesla, design all those rockets. Like they believe that he invented the hyperloop when he renamed the vactrain concept from hundred years ago and then couldn't build it because it's bullshit. Like they believe he will save humanity by helping us anytime soon to escape Earth that people like him are destroying.
I don't really care about Elon Musk. The guy is a mix between a Tech Robber Baron and an emotionally immature 14 years old who has read too much science fiction. And remember more the fiction than the science.
OTOH his fan club is a fascinating experiment on how a cult of personality develops in public and in real time.
I work in the aerospace industry and know several current and former senior engineers at SpaceX. None of them would agree with your assessment that Musk has done no meaningful work for SpaceX, or is a poor engineer incapable of valuable work.
I don't disagree with your read on his lack of maturity, or that he takes credit for work he hasn't done, or that his fans believe he is singularly responsible for the accomplishments of his teams. However, it's odd that Musk is so obsessively hated. I believe his passionate detractors are under a similar polarizing spell as his passionate fans, only in the opposite direction of "hero worship".
I don't disagree with your read on his lack of maturity, or that he takes credit for work he hasn't done, or that his fans believe he is singularly responsible for the accomplishments of his teams. However, it's odd that Musk is so obsessively hated. I believe his passionate detractors are under a similar polarizing spell as his passionate fans, only in the opposite direction of "hero worship".
> "I work in the aerospace industry and know several current and former senior engineers at SpaceX. None of them would agree with your assessment that Musk has done no meaningful work for SpaceX, or is a poor engineer incapable of valuable work."
Could you expand that more? Like what meaningful work did your acquaintances say Musk did for SpaceX and what valuable engineering work did they think he was capable of doing?
Maybe Musk socially engineered a kind of nerd reputational ant mill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_mill where everyone who works in the aerospace industry knows several current and former senior engineers at SpaceX, none of whom agree with the assessment that Musk has done no meaningful work for SpaceX, or is a poor engineer incapable of valuable work.
I know he had pocket emeralds when he was a teenager and he bought twitter and made a lot of stupid tweets, but those things don't take much time, maybe in his other time he did amazing things.
Could you expand that more? Like what meaningful work did your acquaintances say Musk did for SpaceX and what valuable engineering work did they think he was capable of doing?
Maybe Musk socially engineered a kind of nerd reputational ant mill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_mill where everyone who works in the aerospace industry knows several current and former senior engineers at SpaceX, none of whom agree with the assessment that Musk has done no meaningful work for SpaceX, or is a poor engineer incapable of valuable work.
I know he had pocket emeralds when he was a teenager and he bought twitter and made a lot of stupid tweets, but those things don't take much time, maybe in his other time he did amazing things.
I'm talking about the fan perception of Musk.
For example Jordan Peterson went on stage to say somethink (not exact quote) like: "Elon Musk wow. He wanted to built an electric car which is basically impossible and yet he went on, nobody thought he would be possible and he went on to fouund Tesla and now it works".
In real life though the first electric car was invented in 1881, because electricity and fossil fuels have always been the two obvious sources of energy for making a car.
Elon Musk wasn't the founder of Tesla, he bought it. He played a role sure. But obviously, painfully so, he didn't do the Tesla engineering alone. Tesla in fact pays shitloads of engineers to do the engineering. And Tesla is just one company making electric cars. Elon Musk brought the hype, the money, sometimes the right decisions, sometimes the wrong decisions, sometimes the toxic workplace. And he got lots of money from big government.
And sociology taught us you don't have to be rich when you start your career. But that it sure helps a lot when you have no shortage of money, good education, you are a dude, your mother tongue is english, you know the right people, you are an illegal alien but that's okay because you come from a white supremacist country, and you happen to be here during the california gold rush, I mean the silicon valley in the 90s.
When you check all those boxes, you are much more likely to become a "self made man"
For example Jordan Peterson went on stage to say somethink (not exact quote) like: "Elon Musk wow. He wanted to built an electric car which is basically impossible and yet he went on, nobody thought he would be possible and he went on to fouund Tesla and now it works".
In real life though the first electric car was invented in 1881, because electricity and fossil fuels have always been the two obvious sources of energy for making a car.
Elon Musk wasn't the founder of Tesla, he bought it. He played a role sure. But obviously, painfully so, he didn't do the Tesla engineering alone. Tesla in fact pays shitloads of engineers to do the engineering. And Tesla is just one company making electric cars. Elon Musk brought the hype, the money, sometimes the right decisions, sometimes the wrong decisions, sometimes the toxic workplace. And he got lots of money from big government.
And sociology taught us you don't have to be rich when you start your career. But that it sure helps a lot when you have no shortage of money, good education, you are a dude, your mother tongue is english, you know the right people, you are an illegal alien but that's okay because you come from a white supremacist country, and you happen to be here during the california gold rush, I mean the silicon valley in the 90s.
When you check all those boxes, you are much more likely to become a "self made man"
I'm not talking about Musk, it may be hard to believe, but I genuinely don't care about him. He is the current guy with too much money, fame and ego.
I'm talking about his fans and their perceptions of Musk. They hear "he is the real life Tony Stark" and they think "WOW" instead of Tony Stark is a character of fiction that can't possibly exist in reality".
Absurdity is fascinating to me.
I'm talking about his fans and their perceptions of Musk. They hear "he is the real life Tony Stark" and they think "WOW" instead of Tony Stark is a character of fiction that can't possibly exist in reality".
Absurdity is fascinating to me.
To flip that on its head, most people who do great work do it explicitly for someone else. Or put another way: you can build equity for yourself, or you can build equity for someone else.
sometimes that depends on circumstance how easy or hard that decision is, for example if you got pocket emeralds as allowance from your parents when you were a teenager it might be easier to have means and agency to build equity for yourself, whereas if you were literally a medieval serf born into a fief then it might be harder to make this decision to build equity for yourself maybe you will have to revolt
I think some of the fan phenomenon is just how much money he has, although of course that's not the only thing. Like if he plans to spend all his money over the next decade (probably he doesn't) and he doesn't make any more money or interest, then if you can get one single second of his financial attention, then that is worth like a thousand dollars, so of course anyone like that will be swarmed by so many people.
It's not obvious that this must happen actually.
Bernard Arnault is as rich and sometimes richer than Elon Musk.
But there is no big Bernard Arnault cult in France.
He is recognized as a very efficient business shark but not worshipped.
It's all about cultural relationship to money, and France and the US have a quite different relationship to money, although they have in common that it's a werid relationship to money.
Surely there's another type where your work is good but not, in isolation, truly extraordinary, but either by chance or by understanding the problem space is applied in a place that has a massive impact.
I don’t think you have to be better than your peers to do great work, unless they’re direct competitors. You could be working on something they’re not, approaching it in a way that they haven’t, making a creative expression of something particular to your own nature and experiences.
> Obviously the most exciting story to write will be the one you want to read. The reason I mention this case explicitly is that so many people get it wrong. Instead of making what they want, they try to make what some imaginary, more sophisticated audience wants.
somehow, i have almost always made software as for my self if i were the user. And out of 35+ years and 20?30?50?70? projects, only 5 times this aligned. While in most ~~failed cases it was that i wanted much more sophisticated stuff than the eventual audience (if any). Or i was not connected to right audience. All the same.
so.. YMMV
------
another one...
> It's a great thing to be rich in unanswered questions. And this is one of those situations where the rich get richer, because the best way to acquire new questions is to try answering existing ones. Questions don't just lead to answers, but also to more questions.
reminds me of something i told once to my mentees:
"searching answers.. does not make life interesting. Search for questions... then you beCOME interesting. And inconvenient. To the asnwer-producers (whole industries and institutions are only doing this).
which.. is already interesting :)
...Most People are either Answers - and boring ones - or not even Answers, only lay faceless. banal. incredibly predictable and.. like a transparent bag, you see through but can get through..
search for People-that-are-Questions. search. "
have fun
somehow, i have almost always made software as for my self if i were the user. And out of 35+ years and 20?30?50?70? projects, only 5 times this aligned. While in most ~~failed cases it was that i wanted much more sophisticated stuff than the eventual audience (if any). Or i was not connected to right audience. All the same.
so.. YMMV
------
another one...
> It's a great thing to be rich in unanswered questions. And this is one of those situations where the rich get richer, because the best way to acquire new questions is to try answering existing ones. Questions don't just lead to answers, but also to more questions.
reminds me of something i told once to my mentees:
"searching answers.. does not make life interesting. Search for questions... then you beCOME interesting. And inconvenient. To the asnwer-producers (whole industries and institutions are only doing this).
which.. is already interesting :)
...Most People are either Answers - and boring ones - or not even Answers, only lay faceless. banal. incredibly predictable and.. like a transparent bag, you see through but can get through..
search for People-that-are-Questions. search. "
have fun
Design checks all the boxes for me. I am naturally gifted in this field, deeply interested in how everything works, how I can increase quality of life for all beings.
> There's a kind of excited curiosity that's both the engine and the rudder of great work. It will not only drive you, but if you let it have its way, will also show you what to work on.
We are going to meet one day PG and I will thank you for encouraging me since I was 17. I am 33 now and determined as ever.
> There's a kind of excited curiosity that's both the engine and the rudder of great work. It will not only drive you, but if you let it have its way, will also show you what to work on.
We are going to meet one day PG and I will thank you for encouraging me since I was 17. I am 33 now and determined as ever.
"What are you excessively curious about — curious to a degree that would bore most other people? That's what you're looking for."
I'm trying to make sense of this question. Usually people think about boredom as a matter of kind, not degree. X subject is either boring or not to most people, to any degree, small or large.
Conceiving of boredom as a matter of degree is counter intuitive. Is this meant to be an insightful nuanced point or am I just high?
I'm trying to make sense of this question. Usually people think about boredom as a matter of kind, not degree. X subject is either boring or not to most people, to any degree, small or large.
Conceiving of boredom as a matter of degree is counter intuitive. Is this meant to be an insightful nuanced point or am I just high?
Everyone likes movies, but that doesn’t mean they want to discuss cinematography all night.
That's a difference in kind, not degree. People find watching movies interesting, not making them. They're two completely different experiences.
Interests don’t stay in boxes. They grow tentacles that reach up and down the chain of production. They bump up against adjacent fields and they make the whole world look a little different. A single curiosity will evolve and change form over time. The beginning of it might not be boring to others, but if you take it far enough the end probably will be.
I'd imagine that a lot of people who are interested in taking photographs might zone out once I start talking about content-based interpretation and the renewal of artistic language.
Thinking about boredom as a "matter of kind" is just a special case of "matter of degree." The degree is just zero or not zero.
There are lots of subjects that I have a cursory interest in, but then I'm done exploring once I've read the Wikipedia page.
There are lots of subjects that I have a cursory interest in, but then I'm done exploring once I've read the Wikipedia page.
> When you're young you don't know what you're good at or what different kinds of work are like. Some kinds of work you end up doing may not even exist yet. So while some people know what they want to do at 14, most have to figure it out.
That just gave me an idea for a phone app: Something that helps teenagers explore their interests and aptitudes (but not skills of course)
Thoughts?
That just gave me an idea for a phone app: Something that helps teenagers explore their interests and aptitudes (but not skills of course)
Thoughts?
I like the idea, but it’s quite broad. It’s essentially what school is supposed to do.
Yeah true. I don't know the scene in the schools but I have read a lot about how math education is pretty dismal, at least in the USA, depending on the teacher
Maybe theres a way for an app to help someone who does have a math aptitude to realize that they do and that math is fun and not a bunch of rote memorization of formulas
And repeat for like.... a bunch of other types of thought
But you're right, it is pretty broad, so maybe best to start with a specific field
There are apps like Brilliant that focus on math, so maybe that fills that niche, or maybe theres something that else could be added to it in terms of helping someone explore the raw thought processes involved
Maybe theres a way for an app to help someone who does have a math aptitude to realize that they do and that math is fun and not a bunch of rote memorization of formulas
And repeat for like.... a bunch of other types of thought
But you're right, it is pretty broad, so maybe best to start with a specific field
There are apps like Brilliant that focus on math, so maybe that fills that niche, or maybe theres something that else could be added to it in terms of helping someone explore the raw thought processes involved
Maybe you could devise a test that, when completed, can detect where their natural strengths lie. I imagine such a test would be somewhat lengthy. That could easily be turned into an app and marketed.
I had a thought a while back about how education systems are somewhat bad proxies for the type of work you want to do. There are many factors aside from just pure method that determine good fit, such as degrees of freedom, number of collaborators, market saturation and maturity, and feedback cycle lengths, etc.
These vary greatly in “real life” but are almost always restricted in education systems. For instance, simple things like “there is a right answer to this question”, “you can finish this task in less than a week” and of course “an older more experienced person will judge your work” are true in school but vary greatly in the wild.
I’ve found that people’s true passion axes mostly aren’t aligned with specific sub-fields (like say theoretical astrophysics, improv jazz saxophone), but tend to orient themselves towards higher level features. As someone who used to think that narrow specialization is paramount, this realization is incredibly liberating (also kinda missing from PGs post – I think he’s missing or glossing over an important aspect here).
These vary greatly in “real life” but are almost always restricted in education systems. For instance, simple things like “there is a right answer to this question”, “you can finish this task in less than a week” and of course “an older more experienced person will judge your work” are true in school but vary greatly in the wild.
I’ve found that people’s true passion axes mostly aren’t aligned with specific sub-fields (like say theoretical astrophysics, improv jazz saxophone), but tend to orient themselves towards higher level features. As someone who used to think that narrow specialization is paramount, this realization is incredibly liberating (also kinda missing from PGs post – I think he’s missing or glossing over an important aspect here).
> education systems are somewhat bad proxies for the type of work you want to do
Is that because that doing the actual relevant work is the way to find out? If so, maybe making the app more like a game where it tries to simulate things like that
> higher level features
Yeah, thats kind of along the lines I was thinking. Not specific roles but types of thought process, and now that you mention it, types of impact
The whole idea is about uncovering what unique gems a teenager (or adult even) has, rather conforming them to a predetermined framework
Is that because that doing the actual relevant work is the way to find out? If so, maybe making the app more like a game where it tries to simulate things like that
> higher level features
Yeah, thats kind of along the lines I was thinking. Not specific roles but types of thought process, and now that you mention it, types of impact
The whole idea is about uncovering what unique gems a teenager (or adult even) has, rather conforming them to a predetermined framework
It's 2023. Why do many websites featured here still not use HTTPS?
I mean it's a blog, with no ability to sign in / risk leaking any PI. Adding HTTPS would only waste CPU cycles serving the page.
I suppose someone could mitm impersonating pg? Seems like a low risk though.
Sure, but there's a wider context of encrypting all internet traffic to provide less context for the stuff that is sensitive.
What about an inbetween actor changing the content? Or someone just hijacking the website?
This is a common attitude that I think overlooks a big part of the benefits of secure transport.
If all your traffic is TLS then you have a number of benefits, including principally
1) Noone can MITM the traffic. They can't insert anything in stream or do anything else funky that they absolutely can with clear traffic if they own your route somehow.
2) The amount of information leakage is less due to chaffing. Consider a situation where all your sensitive traffic is HTTPS and all your other traffic is HTTP. In that world a bad person monitoring your traffic may not know the details of your sensitive traffic, but they know that the metadata of any HTTPS indicates sensitive traffic. If everything is HTTPS on the other hand literally any of the metadata could be sensitive or non-sensitive and they have no way of telling. The more non-sensitive traffic is encrypted the greater the benefit of this protection.
So given those are pretty significant benefits for visitors to your site it's nice to provide the option of HTTPS. On a seperate note, the amount of CPU cycles consumed by serving HTTPS these days is really trivial especially if you use a EC cert or similar.
If all your traffic is TLS then you have a number of benefits, including principally
1) Noone can MITM the traffic. They can't insert anything in stream or do anything else funky that they absolutely can with clear traffic if they own your route somehow.
2) The amount of information leakage is less due to chaffing. Consider a situation where all your sensitive traffic is HTTPS and all your other traffic is HTTP. In that world a bad person monitoring your traffic may not know the details of your sensitive traffic, but they know that the metadata of any HTTPS indicates sensitive traffic. If everything is HTTPS on the other hand literally any of the metadata could be sensitive or non-sensitive and they have no way of telling. The more non-sensitive traffic is encrypted the greater the benefit of this protection.
So given those are pretty significant benefits for visitors to your site it's nice to provide the option of HTTPS. On a seperate note, the amount of CPU cycles consumed by serving HTTPS these days is really trivial especially if you use a EC cert or similar.
Some telecoms carriers inject their own Javascript into every HTTP page.
I've seen some of that break my pages for some users. It went unnoticed for months until someone complained that "my" Javascript was badly written and breaking something. After a difficult round of conversations where each of us assumed the other was seeing the same page contents, we compared source and found the culprit was injected by the carrier.
So we changed to HTTPS to fix that problem.
I've seen some of that break my pages for some users. It went unnoticed for months until someone complained that "my" Javascript was badly written and breaking something. After a difficult round of conversations where each of us assumed the other was seeing the same page contents, we compared source and found the culprit was injected by the carrier.
So we changed to HTTPS to fix that problem.
It's not even tableless.
[deleted]
I quite like being able to do stuff simply. There's a lot of moaning as to what happened to the old internet where you could just put something up, why does it all end up gate keeped on medium, facebook and the like, and then when someone just puts some text on the web everyone moans that it isn't encrypted like medium, facebook and the like.
Can we get Paul an SSL cert?
How did it hold you back that it was plain http?
That's irrelevant obviously but Chrome pushing a bunch of 'not secure' warnings at me isn't ideal.
What if the answer (to a gap) is in another field, where you have no interest and no aptitude?
Should you force yourself to learn that field for years to get to the good stuff?
Or, stop at the extent of your aptitude and interest?
Should you force yourself to learn that field for years to get to the good stuff?
Or, stop at the extent of your aptitude and interest?
PSA: This is much longer than pg's other essays. There are multiline gaps between sections that can seem like the end.
It feels like this takes a very narrow definition of greatness which is more aligned to innovation and "What will make you famous" or "What will be commercially successful".
From plant life and human health all the way up to nation states, there are lots of people doing great work just making sure that things keep running smoothly.
From plant life and human health all the way up to nation states, there are lots of people doing great work just making sure that things keep running smoothly.
There are also lots of innovations in keeping things running smoothly. And the wonks in those fields recognize those innovations and those innovative folks do tend to enjoy _some_ level of fame or notoriety (if not at a general public level).
Curiosity is key.
I know people who are perfectly content following obscurity with curiosity and the world would not consider them successful by monetary measures.
I know people who are perfectly content following obscurity with curiosity and the world would not consider them successful by monetary measures.
IMO he’s talking about innovation and creation as “great work”.
Sure there’s vast numbers of people doing great work that isn’t innovation and creation.
You’re dismissing the insights here too quickly if you’re just wanting to find fault with the intersection of the term “great work” with all the people in the world doing all sorts of different types of great work.
This is about creation and innovation as great work.
Sure there’s vast numbers of people doing great work that isn’t innovation and creation.
You’re dismissing the insights here too quickly if you’re just wanting to find fault with the intersection of the term “great work” with all the people in the world doing all sorts of different types of great work.
This is about creation and innovation as great work.
It’s Paul Graham. He’s a poster child for essays about how there’s one way to do things.
If you want to have a successful internet business, code in lisp.
If you want to have a successful internet business, code in lisp.
Both are necessary. I think the difference is that Group A (keep things running) without Group B (explore new territory) would have kept us in the stone ages.
However, that is not to understate their importance: a humanity consisting entirely of Group B would be much more unstable, and possibly have gone extinct.
It's similar to the Rogue Bees: https://www.mrdbourke.com/what-if-you-did-the-exact-opposite...
Although rogue bees (as a small portion of the population) are actually essential to a hive's survival.
It's similar to the Rogue Bees: https://www.mrdbourke.com/what-if-you-did-the-exact-opposite...
Although rogue bees (as a small portion of the population) are actually essential to a hive's survival.
Could it be possible that there is also overlap between groups A and B, and the interdependence is what fuels societal progress more than “it’s all group B”?
A tortured analogy could be line cooks and dishwashers, the line cooks made all the tasty food, but the kitchen would crash and burn without the dishwashers and busboys and prep cooks.
This is contrived. You can do a good job bagging groceries, but no society will ever elevate that to "greatness". Colloquially it's either in reference to mastery, or prolific/high-impact work as society is concerned.
It is a very narcisistic perspective. Which makes sense if you consider the author.
Seems well aligned with the dictionary definition of great. If you are maintaining the status quo that is pretty much by definition not great.
great: immense; notable; momentous; exalted; grand
If you can dig ditches faster than anyone else, then you're a great ditch digger, and you're doing great work. Similarly, if you're a surgeon who saves much more lives than the average, you're doing great work. Etc.
If you can dig ditches faster than anyone else, then you're a great ditch digger, and you're doing great work. Similarly, if you're a surgeon who saves much more lives than the average, you're doing great work. Etc.
Absolutely. I'm constantly amazed at the clever, resourceful folks beavering away on things that don't have a lot of visibility.
> It feels like this takes a very narrow definition of greatness which is more aligned to innovation and "What will make you famous" or "What will be commercially successful".
The guy invests money in and profits from other people doing "great work". So it shouldn't be too shocking his primary focus is on the commercial or the innovative.
The guy invests money in and profits from other people doing "great work". So it shouldn't be too shocking his primary focus is on the commercial or the innovative.
Let's talk a little more about the complicated business of figuring out what to work on.
When it comes to figuring out what to work on, you're on your own. Some people get lucky and do guess correctly, but the rest will find themselves scrambling diagonally across tracks laid down on the assumption that everyone does. —- This poses a significant problem, and I’m still seeking solutions.
As a child, I was fascinated by computer games and decided to become a computer engineer.
However, I later discovered that I was not particularly skilled in math and programming. Despite the struggle, I managed to complete my degree.
I had a genuine knack for history and geography and genuinely enjoyed them. However, I wasn’t sure if there were any viable career paths based on my interests, so I didn’t pursue them.
When it comes to figuring out what to work on, you're on your own. Some people get lucky and do guess correctly, but the rest will find themselves scrambling diagonally across tracks laid down on the assumption that everyone does. —- This poses a significant problem, and I’m still seeking solutions.
As a child, I was fascinated by computer games and decided to become a computer engineer.
However, I later discovered that I was not particularly skilled in math and programming. Despite the struggle, I managed to complete my degree.
I had a genuine knack for history and geography and genuinely enjoyed them. However, I wasn’t sure if there were any viable career paths based on my interests, so I didn’t pursue them.
Paul the creator of Ycombinator?
hmm… depends what you consider great. last time i checked companies you helped, one of them was Rappi. they came to Brazil and basically destroyed the bicycle courier scene with anti-competitive practices on other companies just because they were rolling on money. after them, it is pretty rare to see someone working with deliveries and bicycles… and they are more silent and ecological than any motor-cycle or car. and actually smart considering the amount of damage noise and pollution from motor does.
anyway, considering something great is a sensible topic. specially if you taking the amount of money made as a important factor. maybe that is why the world is full of people digging CEOs status on top of zombie-like consumers that can not think for themselves
hmm… depends what you consider great. last time i checked companies you helped, one of them was Rappi. they came to Brazil and basically destroyed the bicycle courier scene with anti-competitive practices on other companies just because they were rolling on money. after them, it is pretty rare to see someone working with deliveries and bicycles… and they are more silent and ecological than any motor-cycle or car. and actually smart considering the amount of damage noise and pollution from motor does.
anyway, considering something great is a sensible topic. specially if you taking the amount of money made as a important factor. maybe that is why the world is full of people digging CEOs status on top of zombie-like consumers that can not think for themselves
"Follow your interest/passion" - is such an easy advice.
However in some societies / economies, it's simply not possible. Where I'm from (India), where a majority of my generation has to lift their families from money problems, there's no option of following passion. There's only "learn/do what makes money". It's not entirely a bad thing though.
For example people here just jump into doing something and then eventually develop a passion for it (setting up a shop, or running a business or producing/distributing boring everyday products, etc).
The other alternative is to spend precious younger years of my time in search of "passion". This happens too, but mostly from folks who already have financial freedom to explore and experiment, who are relatively scarce in some societies.
However in some societies / economies, it's simply not possible. Where I'm from (India), where a majority of my generation has to lift their families from money problems, there's no option of following passion. There's only "learn/do what makes money". It's not entirely a bad thing though.
For example people here just jump into doing something and then eventually develop a passion for it (setting up a shop, or running a business or producing/distributing boring everyday products, etc).
The other alternative is to spend precious younger years of my time in search of "passion". This happens too, but mostly from folks who already have financial freedom to explore and experiment, who are relatively scarce in some societies.
I'm surprised Paul gets upvoted so much, no matter what platitude he serves up. His writing is good for a software engineer, but doesn't hold a candle to a capable journalist or writer. Basically it feels like you're reading a documentation page about the last idea he's had in the shower.
> "Follow your interest/passion" - is such an easy advice.
> For example people here just jump into doing something and then eventually develop a passion for it (setting up a shop, or running a business or producing/distributing boring everyday products, etc).
No one said you first had to sit down, ponder hundreds of life options and then choose your passion. Passion might also come to you as you progress in whatever field you're in. Put differently, you might as well follow your natural inclinations (whatever you find somewhat interesting in the moment) or submit to life/financial constraints (choose a promising career path), and as you become better and better at what you do, develop a passion for it.
> For example people here just jump into doing something and then eventually develop a passion for it (setting up a shop, or running a business or producing/distributing boring everyday products, etc).
No one said you first had to sit down, ponder hundreds of life options and then choose your passion. Passion might also come to you as you progress in whatever field you're in. Put differently, you might as well follow your natural inclinations (whatever you find somewhat interesting in the moment) or submit to life/financial constraints (choose a promising career path), and as you become better and better at what you do, develop a passion for it.
India is essentially at the development stage matching that of XIX century Europe and the US. Back then, nobody was following passions, and everyone was just starting practical businesses and investments which will (hopefully) bring in some money. Now it's India's turn to go through that phase.
[deleted]
So lewisjoe, maybe one way to address this problem would be a fellowship that came with an extra stipend that would keep your family afloat? How much extra would that have to be, in India for a year, or would the required amount be far too variable to estimate?
(Also, the essay did indicate that if you're taking care of someone then his standard advice needs adjustment.)
(Also, the essay did indicate that if you're taking care of someone then his standard advice needs adjustment.)
Is pg factoring uncertainty and unpredictability into this argument on per-project procrastination? He brought in the idea of natural selection earlier in the essay, yet may be ignoring that the best project to work on may not be known a priori.
“One reason per-project procrastination is so dangerous is that it usually camouflages itself as work. You're not just sitting around doing nothing; you're working industriously on something else. So per-project procrastination doesn't set off the alarms that per-day procrastination does.”
“One reason per-project procrastination is so dangerous is that it usually camouflages itself as work. You're not just sitting around doing nothing; you're working industriously on something else. So per-project procrastination doesn't set off the alarms that per-day procrastination does.”
> The three most powerful motives are curiosity, delight, and the desire to do something impressive. Sometimes they converge, and that combination is the most powerful of all.
It’s interesting that he hardly ever mentions making money as a principal motivator.
There’s a big insistence that the desire to make money drives quality (because competition).
In my experience, it’s the opposite. Money is made at the expense of quality.
It’s certainly possible to “bikeshed” on Quality, but I enjoy doing Quality work, even though it sometimes draws scorn.
It’s interesting that he hardly ever mentions making money as a principal motivator.
There’s a big insistence that the desire to make money drives quality (because competition).
In my experience, it’s the opposite. Money is made at the expense of quality.
It’s certainly possible to “bikeshed” on Quality, but I enjoy doing Quality work, even though it sometimes draws scorn.
Depends on what quality you optimize for. The quality of the execution, the quality of cost controls, etc.
If you mean the quality of each unit of the product, then yes, you're largely right. You just need enough quality to let people buy from you, and any corner you can cut without losing sales is profit. However, often a startup needs to push the quality bar at first to be competitive with large existing incumbents in a market segment.
If you mean the quality of each unit of the product, then yes, you're largely right. You just need enough quality to let people buy from you, and any corner you can cut without losing sales is profit. However, often a startup needs to push the quality bar at first to be competitive with large existing incumbents in a market segment.
My problem with Paul Graham's work is he keeps pushing on nature over nurture. Most work can actually be learned and you don't need a "natural aptitude" for it. This is especially true of knowledge work like programming, but also true of things like 'musical' or 'acting' or anything else. Most things can be learned.
I wish Paul Graham would stop pushing that silly outdated concept of "natural aptitude".
I wish Paul Graham would stop pushing that silly outdated concept of "natural aptitude".
IMO this comment goes too far in the other direction. There is a lot of "natural aptitude" in what we can learn, and more specifically, what we can learn to do well. I can theoretically learn ballet, but I have no "natural aptitude" and so I will never be even OK at it. Similarly, my wife could try to learn programming, but her brain isn't able to make sense of how programming works. The big thing is that just because you don't have "natural aptitude" for something doesn't make you a worse human. It just means your strengths are elsewhere.
Have you tried ballet? Has your wife tried programming? Seems this is all just speculation if I were a betting man.
This mindset you have is called a fixed mindset.
https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/growth-mindset-vs-fixed-min...
I could teach anyone programming including your wife. The mechanics of it are easy. The hard part is building things that matter.
This mindset you have is called a fixed mindset.
https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/growth-mindset-vs-fixed-min...
I could teach anyone programming including your wife. The mechanics of it are easy. The hard part is building things that matter.
> What are you excessively curious about — curious to a degree that would bore most other people? That's what you're looking for.
> The three most powerful motives are curiosity, delight, and the desire to do something impressive.
There's a contradiction here. If you work on something that bores other people (small niches) it will not satisfy the desire to do something impressive.
For example: I want to tell my in-laws I work at Google, but I really want to create maps that simulate sunlight and shadow
> The three most powerful motives are curiosity, delight, and the desire to do something impressive.
There's a contradiction here. If you work on something that bores other people (small niches) it will not satisfy the desire to do something impressive.
For example: I want to tell my in-laws I work at Google, but I really want to create maps that simulate sunlight and shadow
Not related to the post. I am genuinely curious. Does PG make his own titles? And why is it a gif instead of a regular text? I know the site has remained stuck in the 90s kind of web design and I quite like it. However, I fail to understand why the title has to be a gif instead of text. Is it autogenerating it in the backend or did someone actually write it out in some graphical software, exported the title to a gif and then hardcoded it into the HTML? So many questions LMFAO
It's auto generated using ImageMagick. A lot of that is because he wrote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viaweb in 1995 when things were done like that and then used the same tech for his personal site.
Thanks for this gem!
> A lot of that is because he wrote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viaweb in 1995 when things were done like that and then used the same tech for his personal site
Makes sense considering the first version of CSS did not roll out up until 1996 at the very least.
> A lot of that is because he wrote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viaweb in 1995 when things were done like that and then used the same tech for his personal site
Makes sense considering the first version of CSS did not roll out up until 1996 at the very least.
I have always wondered is greatness is something we see in retrospect and in the middle of all the work - do we really see it as great. What keeps us ticking to do the work?
The passion, the finish line, the eye on the goal, the fleeting moment of accomplishment?
And do you really see work as a product of your life's output. Or the way you live your life as one dedicated to the work. Are your relationships, your friendships, your contribution to your immediate environment around you motivators?
The passion, the finish line, the eye on the goal, the fleeting moment of accomplishment?
And do you really see work as a product of your life's output. Or the way you live your life as one dedicated to the work. Are your relationships, your friendships, your contribution to your immediate environment around you motivators?
Some of you might not have time to read 10,000+ words. I’ve tried my best to summarise the essay here: https://twitter.com/sagarpatil/status/1675438574140006401?s=...
If you have time, I recommend you reading the whole essay.
If you have time, I recommend you reading the whole essay.
[deleted]
What typos or formatting issues did you notice, that should maybe be fixed?
* Footnotes would ideally have backlinks, for those who read them all at once.
* "ballon bursting"
* Footnotes would ideally have backlinks, for those who read them all at once.
* "ballon bursting"
I can't help but feel this essay is literally 100x longer than it needs to be for the point it's trying to make. This sort of long-winded, redundant writing seems to have gone out of style a long time ago.
Perhaps I am a bit too cynical here, but I think that it is harder to criticize a long-winded article than a short bold statement -- thereby making it slightly more comfortable to publish. For a critical reader, it takes a lot of effort to read the entire article, then check that its flaws are not nullified by some additional arguments, etc.
> "Believe it or not, I tried to make this essay as short as I could. But its length at least means it acts as a filter. If you made it this far, you must be interested in doing great work. And if so you're already further along than you might realize, because the set of people willing to want to is small."
I scrolled up and down quickly through the essay, and the above was the very first thing I randomly read.
I scrolled up and down quickly through the essay, and the above was the very first thing I randomly read.
Maybe hard work has gone out of style?
Yesterday I poured over two companies documentation. About 200 pages of their API docs only to find:
Dozen of typos. Errors in versions. Conflicts in examples. Broken examples.
I barely invest in this much reading but this time I did because I was trying to deliver and sure enough I'm able to benefit our entire product because of this effort.
Yesterday I poured over two companies documentation. About 200 pages of their API docs only to find:
Dozen of typos. Errors in versions. Conflicts in examples. Broken examples.
I barely invest in this much reading but this time I did because I was trying to deliver and sure enough I'm able to benefit our entire product because of this effort.
By the way, and only because your comment suggests you care about detail and will find this valuable: it’s “pored over” unless there was a liquid you were dumping on them.
[deleted]
It's lousy documentation but it makes great coffee.
> pored over
Let's change this. That's disgusting. Literally.
Let's change this. That's disgusting. Literally.
Thank you. I didn't know that was the correct spelling.
Do you have examples of 200+ page API documentation that doesn't have any errors or broken examples?
Sounds like the law of small errors to me:
https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_4_00.html
Sounds like the law of small errors to me:
https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_4_00.html
Django docs come to mind
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.2/ref/class-based-views/...
> from article.view
Broken example due to typo.
I'm being facetious but it's actually easy to find them because their are typo PRs open in their GitHub.
Hopefully demonstrates the point though: the law holds.
> from article.view
Broken example due to typo.
I'm being facetious but it's actually easy to find them because their are typo PRs open in their GitHub.
Hopefully demonstrates the point though: the law holds.
It’s hard to not be lazy in today’s corporate environments. You simply don’t get much for putting in the extra effort.
Hard work needs incentives. Companies want you to light that fire yourself so they don’t have to pay extra. It’s why I’m not curious about anything work-related (plus it’s hard to be interested in CRUD apps after a decade). Even if I was, I’d give the benefits to myself and not my company.
Hard work needs incentives. Companies want you to light that fire yourself so they don’t have to pay extra. It’s why I’m not curious about anything work-related (plus it’s hard to be interested in CRUD apps after a decade). Even if I was, I’d give the benefits to myself and not my company.
Although I enjoy reading his essays, yes, they tend to be longer than usual.
I wonder whether he uses an editor to provide constructive feedback before publishing it or just writes and clicks "publish."
Interestingly, I found that point missing: people who do great work usually have editors/mentors/advisors to help them along the way.
I wonder whether he uses an editor to provide constructive feedback before publishing it or just writes and clicks "publish."
Interestingly, I found that point missing: people who do great work usually have editors/mentors/advisors to help them along the way.
Scroll to the bottom. He always credits multiple people. I assume all of them read his drafts.
Next you will say books are out of style
How so?
There is a difference between long-form writing and long-winded writing.
There is a difference between long-form writing and long-winded writing.
One wonders if he imagines writing and selling Viaweb during the dot com time was greatness comparable to discovering new physics.
I like the article and I believe much of it, but I’ve been chasing personal passions for more than 25 years and I haven’t had a side project I’d call successful, at least not in a financial sense. So, there’s something else to that part. I suspect it’s at least a bit of luck. I continue to try to find a function that will work for me.
TL;Dr - be rich enough that you don't need to do Real Work and can focus on your personal passion projects.
This is possibly the best essay that Paul ever wrote. I've read it through the end, and the final part is so personal and so valuable that I don't want to anticipate anything, if you haven't read it already.
Mary Helen Immordino Yang has some interesting thoughts about how to change education to make it nudge kids towards doing more interesting work:
https://youtu.be/S8jWFcDGz4Y
https://youtu.be/S8jWFcDGz4Y
Summary?
I liked these two snippets at the end.
"Many more people could try to do great work than do. What holds them back is a combination of modesty and fear. "
"Do you want to do great work, or not? Now you have to decide consciously. "
"Many more people could try to do great work than do. What holds them back is a combination of modesty and fear. "
"Do you want to do great work, or not? Now you have to decide consciously. "
Perhaps too unrelated but it is amusing to me that this isn't served over HTTPS and I wanted to share that remark as it got caught in my HTTPS everywhere extension
I think, while you are not in top10%, you shoud copy best practices. Or even untill top3%. And when you get there - then you shoud think about own system.
[deleted]
This felt somehow complementary to Dr Seuss’ “Oh the places you’ll go”, specifically, part two and/or a commentary on part one. Thanks for this.
Unlocking your full potential comes down to one thing: passion. Find what lights a fire within you and let it fuel your journey towards doing great work.
It's funny what people tell you if you just listen. Scrabble and Great Work. Tiddly Winks probably won't lead to great work either.
[deleted]
> Develop a habit of working on your own projects. Don't let "work" mean something other people tell you to do.
I spend eight hours+ a day supporting my addiction to food and shelter. Why would I spend my free time working toward “greatness” instead of doing hobbies I enjoy and spending time with friends and family?
Any other time I have I’m spending working out and training for runs - neither of which I will ever be great at.
I spend eight hours+ a day supporting my addiction to food and shelter. Why would I spend my free time working toward “greatness” instead of doing hobbies I enjoy and spending time with friends and family?
Any other time I have I’m spending working out and training for runs - neither of which I will ever be great at.
Sometimes that side work prepares you for a day job that's more enjoyable and/or pays better.
Sure, but also sometimes you waste your life working thinking you kick ass left and right, till you arrive at certain point, ie retirement and realize you actually wasted your life, and no amount of money can change that. Sure, you have a some freedom ahead of you, but only as much as your health, finances and other circumstances allow you to, and this is usually less than people project earlier.
Plus family happens now for many of us, and not later. Kids need their parents, not their money. Its a grave mistake that hurts badly your closest ones for life to prioritize excellence in 1 direction over everything else, especially them.
I'll always have endless amount of respect of people raising their kids properly themselves into mature, happy adults who know what they want in life and go for it, even if it means they just worked to live. I don't have even a cubic picometer of respect for folks who end up doing the opposite, regardless of what they achieved professionally. This world needs new generation of balanced adults much much more than some search optimized by 0.1% or some marginally improved social graph monetization.
Of course not everybody wants, needs or can create a family, that's fine but another topic, then I agree with you more.
Plus family happens now for many of us, and not later. Kids need their parents, not their money. Its a grave mistake that hurts badly your closest ones for life to prioritize excellence in 1 direction over everything else, especially them.
I'll always have endless amount of respect of people raising their kids properly themselves into mature, happy adults who know what they want in life and go for it, even if it means they just worked to live. I don't have even a cubic picometer of respect for folks who end up doing the opposite, regardless of what they achieved professionally. This world needs new generation of balanced adults much much more than some search optimized by 0.1% or some marginally improved social graph monetization.
Of course not everybody wants, needs or can create a family, that's fine but another topic, then I agree with you more.
After staying at a job for too long by 2008 and barely surviving the recession at a startup until 2012 and also getting married the same year and (gladly) becoming the father to my then 9 and 14 year old stepsons, I changed jobs six times and pushed myself to get ahead until 2020 and falling into a mid level position at BigTech (cloud consulting department).
I then tried to stay on the treadmill and I spent about a year working toward a promotion by increasing my “scope” and “impact”.
I then realized by 2022 at 48 years old, why? I make more than “enough” especially seeing I work remotely.
I then told my manager I was just interested in “improving in my current role” and my wife and I decided to do something completely different:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36306966
I’ve never been happier not trying to be “great” and being “content”
I then tried to stay on the treadmill and I spent about a year working toward a promotion by increasing my “scope” and “impact”.
I then realized by 2022 at 48 years old, why? I make more than “enough” especially seeing I work remotely.
I then told my manager I was just interested in “improving in my current role” and my wife and I decided to do something completely different:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36306966
I’ve never been happier not trying to be “great” and being “content”
I found it much better to work “overtime” at my day job to learn new to me technologies and do POCs if the company is not using the technology or to volunteer for assignments based on something I don’t know well and put in extra time to meet the deadline.
One reason is that I can seek feedback from coworkers and polish the POC. I also can take advantage of infrastructure that may be cost prohibitive to test something at scale based on real world usage.
The other reason is that for my next job, it’s much more impressive to say I spearheaded work for a company than a hobbyist side project.
Yes I know one advantage of your own side project is that you can show your code. But most of the time the hiring manager isn’t going to take time to look at your work anyway.
I have personally been fortunate enough to have unfettered Admin access to an AWS account on someone else’s dime between two jobs for the past five years where I could experiment and learn on the job.
One reason is that I can seek feedback from coworkers and polish the POC. I also can take advantage of infrastructure that may be cost prohibitive to test something at scale based on real world usage.
The other reason is that for my next job, it’s much more impressive to say I spearheaded work for a company than a hobbyist side project.
Yes I know one advantage of your own side project is that you can show your code. But most of the time the hiring manager isn’t going to take time to look at your work anyway.
I have personally been fortunate enough to have unfettered Admin access to an AWS account on someone else’s dime between two jobs for the past five years where I could experiment and learn on the job.
I certainly don't think you have to, and I don't think that's what Graham is saying, either. For those who are ambitious/do seek "greatness" in some form, though, I think this is a good article.
There’s literally a note that says the text assumes you’re very ambitious. If you have no desire to work towards some definition of “greatness”, I assume that you’re not ambitious, and the text doesn’t apply to you.
Which is ok! You don’t need to be ambitious, but it also means you shouldn’t take this essay so personally.
Which is ok! You don’t need to be ambitious, but it also means you shouldn’t take this essay so personally.
This is a oddly very narrow view of ambition.
Genuinely not sure what you mean — it seems like the standard definition of ambition.
How would you define it?
How would you define it?
Ambition has a large dynamic range. Shooting for greatness is closer to the extremes.
?
The article says “very” ambitious. So there’s no contradiction here
The article says “very” ambitious. So there’s no contradiction here
Why
Ambition is a pretty ambiguous term for what I think—here—means “A strong yearning for a type of success characterised by western capitalist-individualistic schema of wealth and status.” Cool if you want that I guess. But it’s narrow af.
If you work hard, in the fields, every day, perhaps one day you, too, could be a successful pharaoh like me. Said the great wise pharaoh.
Can you give me an example of a very ambitious goal that doesn’t fall under the western definition you posted, and yet, can not benefit from the article?
> Why would I spend my free time working toward “greatness”
you don't have to. But then don't wonder why you never achieve greatness. Of course, life isn't about greatness.
you don't have to. But then don't wonder why you never achieve greatness. Of course, life isn't about greatness.
If you can be a great parent, you’ve already achieved greatness from my point of view. And perhaps easier to achieve.
Is Franz Kafka best remembered for how good he was at his day job?
And he died at 40 and this was his personal life:
> Kafka never married. According to Brod, Kafka was "tortured" by sexual desire … his life was full of "incessant womanising" and that he was filled with a fear of "sexual failure".[64] Kafka visited brothels for most of his adult life[65][66][67] and was interested in pornography.[63] In addition, he had close relationships with several women during his lifetime. On 13 August 1912, Kafka met Felice Bauer, a relative of Brod's, who worked in Berlin as a representative of a dictaphone company. A week after the meeting at Brod's home, Kafka wrote in his diary:
> Kafka never married. According to Brod, Kafka was "tortured" by sexual desire … his life was full of "incessant womanising" and that he was filled with a fear of "sexual failure".[64] Kafka visited brothels for most of his adult life[65][66][67] and was interested in pornography.[63] In addition, he had close relationships with several women during his lifetime. On 13 August 1912, Kafka met Felice Bauer, a relative of Brod's, who worked in Berlin as a representative of a dictaphone company. A week after the meeting at Brod's home, Kafka wrote in his diary:
OK… neither here nor there for my point that nobody remembers him as a clerk.
Isn’t that the point though? Do you think on his death bed when he looked back at his relatively short life he took solace in the fact that years in the future some random people admired his “greatness” even though his personal life was a mess?
I don't pretend to have any idea of his interior life but I do think that if he invested his time in being great at his job rather than a passion project with no real practical purpose he would be forgotten. I like being a dad but I don't think everyone has to do that or aspire to it.
> The following recipe assumes you're very ambitious.
No reason why. PG isn't writing to you. If you've got hobbies that make you happy, relationships you love, and runs that keep you healthy, I'm sure PG would tell you not to change anything.
No reason why. PG isn't writing to you. If you've got hobbies that make you happy, relationships you love, and runs that keep you healthy, I'm sure PG would tell you not to change anything.
I think the idea here would be to manage your manager so you can tie what work interests you into your job whenever possible, implied by this section:
"Don't let "work" mean something other people tell you to do. If you do manage to do great work one day, it will probably be on a project of your own. It may be within some bigger project, but you'll be driving your part of it."
as for time with family and friends, I'd say you can't have it all. It's a personal decision on whether you want to achieve "greatness" and what you are willing to sacrifice for it
"Don't let "work" mean something other people tell you to do. If you do manage to do great work one day, it will probably be on a project of your own. It may be within some bigger project, but you'll be driving your part of it."
as for time with family and friends, I'd say you can't have it all. It's a personal decision on whether you want to achieve "greatness" and what you are willing to sacrifice for it
I enjoy working on my side projects more so than other hobbies, I have fun with them, it's not "work" in the sense as I think you mean. I'm not working towards "greatness" as much as I have ideas for projects that I think should exist and then want to bring them into existence.
I truly and deeply find my chosen projects interesting and stimulating in a way other things aren't.
I don't view work as a bad thing, with the caveat that it has to be productive and interesting work that goes towards something I think is impactful where the definition of impactful is personal.
I'm not saying your way is incorrect or bad or anything, just providing the perspective of someone who spends a lot of time working and how I feel about it.
I truly and deeply find my chosen projects interesting and stimulating in a way other things aren't.
I don't view work as a bad thing, with the caveat that it has to be productive and interesting work that goes towards something I think is impactful where the definition of impactful is personal.
I'm not saying your way is incorrect or bad or anything, just providing the perspective of someone who spends a lot of time working and how I feel about it.
If your personal projects are "work" then yes do not bother. These are my creative outlet and where I get to enjoy coding again. My day job is massive .net/angular/sql projects that are just meh.
Develop a habit of having a lot of dollars. Don't let life be something you do without at least a billion of them.
You're totally welcome for the sage advice. Have a nice day.
haha.
You're totally welcome for the sage advice. Have a nice day.
haha.
What's your complaint? That this article is not targeted at you? The article is titled "how to do great work". If you aren't interested in doing great work then you are not the target audience.
Does HN really think this? 99% of people will have neutral to negative impact on the world 10 yrs post mortem. None of us are the target audience is this article
The words you wrote make sense but are filled with so many assumptions and beliefs that I actually don't understand what you are trying to say.
For example
> 99% of people will have neutral to negative impact on the world 10 yrs post mortem
What does it even mean to have a negative impact on the "world"? Do you mean a negative impact on humanity? Also, where does the 99% number come from.
> None of us are the target audience is this article
Do you think humanity would be worse off with more people working hard to create and discover things to improve their own lives and the lives of others?
Anyway, your comment is filled with cliche cynicism. Cynicism is a cheap way to appear smart. I think people learned it from TV when they watched tv shows like House or Sherlock.
For example
> 99% of people will have neutral to negative impact on the world 10 yrs post mortem
What does it even mean to have a negative impact on the "world"? Do you mean a negative impact on humanity? Also, where does the 99% number come from.
> None of us are the target audience is this article
Do you think humanity would be worse off with more people working hard to create and discover things to improve their own lives and the lives of others?
Anyway, your comment is filled with cliche cynicism. Cynicism is a cheap way to appear smart. I think people learned it from TV when they watched tv shows like House or Sherlock.
What question do you have about this essay?
(It would be interesting to know, without reading every comment, what questions people have about it.)
(It would be interesting to know, without reading every comment, what questions people have about it.)
Question: how could comments on the essay be structured, so as to give them maximum value for readers?
The essay doesn't mention LLMs. Does their rapid progress change the advice at all?
Empirically, does bicycling work for coming up with ideas too?
(as walking and running do)
What are the characteristics of an institution whose people do great work?
Would it be fair to compare Bell Labs to Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study?
How would you go about designing a high school or undergraduate course in coming up with the questions, ideally including doing work that raises them? What&where are some courses that do this?
Anytime PG published an article I want to go “sshhhh why are you telling them that you’re giving away all my hard earned secrets!”
Great article
Great article
https mirror: https://archive.is/4ZlRl
> Believe it or not, I tried to make this essay as short as I could.
Is there some intent in not using headings?
Is there some intent in not using headings?
Kind of strange I'm getting a certificate error for this site... wondering if its just me. Strange.
The fact that this is so much longer than previous ones makes me wonder if LLMs were involved.
Why is his site not in https??
Only the truly ambitious people will click through and read it. It acts as a filter.
I hope that is sarcasm
This essay was about 39 pages
~ 11,756 words and the average book page has 300 words.
~ 11,756 words and the average book page has 300 words.
Am I the only one who is noticing that pg's posts are getting longer lately?
This essay is about 39 pages
~ 11,756 words and the average book page has 300 words.
~ 11,756 words and the average book page has 300 words.
[deleted]
Two words: Ambitious Curiosity
Twenty words: Strive for great work by choosing an exciting field, exploring its frontiers, noticing gaps, and boldly exploring promising ideas.
Twenty words: Strive for great work by choosing an exciting field, exploring its frontiers, noticing gaps, and boldly exploring promising ideas.
a great work has many conditions, and takes a lifetime dedication from early on
This is a good article, but I don't think it acknowledges the challenges and dangers that come with working in disruptive technology fields. There are certain fields where great work is welcomed by all, and although their may be a competition between interested parties over who gets to control (i.e. profit from) the fruits of your work, nobody is interested in actively suppressing technological progress in that field. For example, nobody I know of wants to suppress the development of faster computer chips - although the US government doesn't want China to have access to the latest ASML process technology.
There are many fields where this is not true - e.g. neither Apple nor Microsoft were thrilled about the development of the open-source Linux operating system for decades. Similarly, renewable energy technology funding has been actively suppressed at the federal funding level in the USA by politicians in the pay of the fossil fuel sector since the 1970s, as even a cursory examination of DOE budgets will reveal. Decentralized robust energy grids not under the control of large investor conglomerates are another touchy subject.
Nevertheless, it's possible to do great work in these fields but only if you understand the forces arrayed against you in great detail. In some cases, making progress might require fairly radical solutions. For renewable energy development, moving to a country whose economy is not based on fossil fuel exports and which already is interested in replacing fossil fuel imports with renewables might be the optimal solution, particularly if the kind of work you have in mind requires expensive technological support. Otherwise, you'll have to accept shoestring budgets and active opposition to your work.
There are a rather large number of fields where these issues arise. Academic institutions have largely been corporatized in the USA, and one side-effect is the gutting of environmental contaminant research programs that measured things like heavy metals, organochlorine contaminants, etc. in water, plants and soil. Similarly, research progams that focused on the potential uses of out-of-patent medicinal compounds were eliminated because the private pharmaceutical partners of universities were only interested in new patentable compounds. Of course, there are fields where you'll get lots of support - development of military drone technology, say.
This kind of situation isn't a new phenomena. Historically, technological stagnation is associated with the rise of autocratic monopoly power in all civilizations. The printing press was a threat to the established order in medieval Europe, the electric lightbulb was a threat to the kerosene lamp and oil business (note it took FDR's New Deal to electrify Rural America), and so on. Therefore, if you plan on doing great work in a disruptive technology field, don't be surprised when you run into headwinds of various sorts. Such forces can often be overcome (Linux eventually succeeded on a large scale), but pretending they don't exist is the worst mistake you can make. Understanding those opposing forces in detail is going to be a necessary first step.
There are many fields where this is not true - e.g. neither Apple nor Microsoft were thrilled about the development of the open-source Linux operating system for decades. Similarly, renewable energy technology funding has been actively suppressed at the federal funding level in the USA by politicians in the pay of the fossil fuel sector since the 1970s, as even a cursory examination of DOE budgets will reveal. Decentralized robust energy grids not under the control of large investor conglomerates are another touchy subject.
Nevertheless, it's possible to do great work in these fields but only if you understand the forces arrayed against you in great detail. In some cases, making progress might require fairly radical solutions. For renewable energy development, moving to a country whose economy is not based on fossil fuel exports and which already is interested in replacing fossil fuel imports with renewables might be the optimal solution, particularly if the kind of work you have in mind requires expensive technological support. Otherwise, you'll have to accept shoestring budgets and active opposition to your work.
There are a rather large number of fields where these issues arise. Academic institutions have largely been corporatized in the USA, and one side-effect is the gutting of environmental contaminant research programs that measured things like heavy metals, organochlorine contaminants, etc. in water, plants and soil. Similarly, research progams that focused on the potential uses of out-of-patent medicinal compounds were eliminated because the private pharmaceutical partners of universities were only interested in new patentable compounds. Of course, there are fields where you'll get lots of support - development of military drone technology, say.
This kind of situation isn't a new phenomena. Historically, technological stagnation is associated with the rise of autocratic monopoly power in all civilizations. The printing press was a threat to the established order in medieval Europe, the electric lightbulb was a threat to the kerosene lamp and oil business (note it took FDR's New Deal to electrify Rural America), and so on. Therefore, if you plan on doing great work in a disruptive technology field, don't be surprised when you run into headwinds of various sorts. Such forces can often be overcome (Linux eventually succeeded on a large scale), but pretending they don't exist is the worst mistake you can make. Understanding those opposing forces in detail is going to be a necessary first step.
> Don't let "work" mean something other people tell you to do.
So, either be someone who's privileged, or very lucky, or - first get rid of the wage-labor-based economy, and probably Capitalism altogether, then get started :-)
So, either be someone who's privileged, or very lucky, or - first get rid of the wage-labor-based economy, and probably Capitalism altogether, then get started :-)
One might be forgiven for wondering if PG gets paid by the word.
An essay worth waiting months to read
I haven't finished this yet, will take more than one sitting to digest, but I'm already 90% sure I'm going to disagree with this one a lot.
I like to validate people's advice by playing it out in hypotheticals, so let's take some random fields people may think they want to be great at, and apply this advice: chess, piano, philosophy, quantum physics, soccer. I think it's self-evident that his algorithm isn't suited for the wide set of cases.
Here's my alternative proposal:
- If you're interested in a field, first ask, what % of people who dedicate their life to that field get any kind of fame/wealth/recognition (or whatever greatness means to you). So if we're talking chess, and you're already 14 and can't play, you have a 0% chance of getting to the top 100. Or if it's being a famous writer good to know what your base odds are.
- Look up people who RECENTLY (within 30 years) succeeded in this field and look for patterns. I know 0 famous philosophers of the last 30 years, but the closest ones would probably be youtube philosophers. So maybe that's the current meta.
- Look at the power-structures that determine success in the field (soccer is a fair game, art is judged by a few powerful tastemakers, news may be judged by clicks, some academia is judged by splash), decide if you are okay with the system and think you can excel in this system. Don't become a professional writer because "You have something to say," become a writer because "You have something other people want to hear."
That's all I got for now, it's his blog post not mine.
I like to validate people's advice by playing it out in hypotheticals, so let's take some random fields people may think they want to be great at, and apply this advice: chess, piano, philosophy, quantum physics, soccer. I think it's self-evident that his algorithm isn't suited for the wide set of cases.
Here's my alternative proposal:
- If you're interested in a field, first ask, what % of people who dedicate their life to that field get any kind of fame/wealth/recognition (or whatever greatness means to you). So if we're talking chess, and you're already 14 and can't play, you have a 0% chance of getting to the top 100. Or if it's being a famous writer good to know what your base odds are.
- Look up people who RECENTLY (within 30 years) succeeded in this field and look for patterns. I know 0 famous philosophers of the last 30 years, but the closest ones would probably be youtube philosophers. So maybe that's the current meta.
- Look at the power-structures that determine success in the field (soccer is a fair game, art is judged by a few powerful tastemakers, news may be judged by clicks, some academia is judged by splash), decide if you are okay with the system and think you can excel in this system. Don't become a professional writer because "You have something to say," become a writer because "You have something other people want to hear."
That's all I got for now, it's his blog post not mine.
[deleted]
Watch out for this during your analysis:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics
> Don't become a professional writer because "You have something to say," become a writer because "You have something other people want to hear."
I think this is terrible advice for doing great work, probably good advice for doing shallow work that gets you paid. Great does not (always) mean wealthy, popular or well liked. Plenty of writers went through life with people telling them they sucked and then eventually people got it. Look at Charles Bukowski for example.
I think this is terrible advice for doing great work, probably good advice for doing shallow work that gets you paid. Great does not (always) mean wealthy, popular or well liked. Plenty of writers went through life with people telling them they sucked and then eventually people got it. Look at Charles Bukowski for example.
I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure you see what I'm saying.
If you want to maximize your chances of being a great writer, obviously write. But if you want to maximize your chances of being great period, then you need to decide if writing the next great american novel is the course you want to work toward. IMO you are an order of magnitude more likely to become famous/great from youtube than from writing, even if your best skill is novel-writing.
Sure there are people who persevered at writing at made it work, but also probably more people persevered and wasted their lives on writing than most other pursuits.
If you want to maximize your chances of being a great writer, obviously write. But if you want to maximize your chances of being great period, then you need to decide if writing the next great american novel is the course you want to work toward. IMO you are an order of magnitude more likely to become famous/great from youtube than from writing, even if your best skill is novel-writing.
Sure there are people who persevered at writing at made it work, but also probably more people persevered and wasted their lives on writing than most other pursuits.
Does anyone have a TLDR of this? My attention span isn't what it used to be.
[deleted]
[deleted]
can I sell pg a https cert plz
rmorey(3)
Why is this post so long?
I clicked on this without seeing that it's on paulgraham.com, yet still picked up it was his writing within a minute of reading. His writing is distinct even for someone who hasn't read much of it.
My question is: why?
My question is: why?
It's a unique mix of true earnestness, over-generalisation, very short sentences of roughly similar length, some insights, and a preachy tone. and a 90s website design :)
This blog post is GREAT and INSPIRING!! Thank you so much!
---
What came in mind is: To attentively make use of the concepts of static and dynamic quality (introduced in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila:_An_Inquiry_into_Morals).
The problem is there’s no money in it. Hasbro is litigious, all of this stuff is open source because I find it curious and deeply interesting, and as a sort of misguided attempt to try to democratize access to it. I’m not going to charge without getting sued, and even if one of the companies like Scopely wanted to hire me, I’m only interested in keeping this open source and free. So I’m not really sure what to do.