I'm also confused about how this works. If you choose to never raise after YC, is the remaining $375K just part of of the 7% they take upfront, or is it only available if you raise?
> Simply put, we’re giving the company money now but at terms you’ll negotiate with future investors.
I think it comes down to individual learning style. Here [1] is James Clear tweeting a 3-sentence summary of his book. These ideas totally impacted the way I operate and helped me achieve a lot more than I would have on my own. But I needed to read the book to implement these tactics. If I only read the tweet, I don't think it would have had any long-term impact on me.
I agree that being wordy can be a waste of time! And I agree that many business books blow up small ideas into large books. I also think that sometimes expanding on an impactful insight can help you teach it better.
Different people learn differently, maybe? The great truths in life boil down to a few sentences (ex: "just do it"). If someone writes a book about that truth, are they wasting your time? Maybe. But there are other people who need to hear the story to learn from that grain of truth.
I've definitely read books that were way too long and full of filler content. But I've also scrolled through tweet-sized brilliant insights that I forgot the next minute.
In my opinion, Atomic Habits was not a filler book (I also listened to it on audiobook), but as always, YMMV.
Ha! For what it's worth, as an internet stranger, I would have been just as likely to read if you simply said "I have this theory" and laid out the same thing. Either way, thanks for sharing, and let me know if you publish anything about this!
Lack of presence. Any interviewer that's not giving the interview as much of their full attention as possible (emergencies aside, of course). I've been on both sides of this, and I feel bad for interviews I've given where I was distracted or underprepared.
Conversely, my best interviews (and 1:1s) have been with people who are fully present.
I read this comment a few days ago, and it really stuck with me. I'm so curious where this comes from - would you happen to remember the talk, or where I could read about this concept?
Building gem.fm, a website that recommends the best podcast episodes to listen to (still pretty rough around the edges!) and doing some contract work! Loving the engineering challenges of working on my own project long-term.
This product seems to combine a few unrelated ideas. No monetization, reverse-chronological feed, no notifications: sweet. Easier to have cleaner, more meaningful conversations with people, hopefully. In short, a nicer, ad-free, less-harmful Facebook. How will you pay for it if it ever gets popular?
I'm not sure how limited posts play into this. I think the intention is to make users really think about what they're posting. But the arbitrary, "nice, round number" limit just feels existentially dreadful at best, and like a headline-generating schtick at worst. Surely there's some other mechanism that can nudge people towards more thoughtful, less self-promoting posts (or whatever the goal is); maybe limiting posts to one a day?
The insane number of tools and processes was the motivator behind Hackterms (https://www.hackterms.com) - the Urban Dictionary for programming terms, and a sort or modern Jargon File. We're now at ~1200 definitions and I reference it regularly.