Readit News* 1st third of the book: Lays out the basic ideas, gives several examples
* 2nd third of the book: More examples that repeat the themes from the 1st part
* 3rd third of the book: ??? I usually give up at this point
I sometimes wish that more books were like "The Mom Test" - just long enough to say what they need, even if that makes for a short book.
The "good" spots are highly desirable and usually privately owned (or on a very long-term lease), and you often need to buy a boat to get the mooring spot beneath it. (A buddy of mine in London ended up with 3 boats while upgrading his mooring spot.)
Another options is to vagabond it, where you move your boat to a new area every week or two -- this is usually unserviced, so it's more like camping, but lets you use unofficial spots and is free.
(The last option is to find goofy loopholes. E.g., in some areas of the Thames, you can create a nesting habitat for an endangered bird on your boat, and then once the bird settles in, they can't force you to move, since doing so would destroy an important habitat. Sounds stupid but a surprising number of permanent city boats are there on some sort of loophole.)
It's true, as another commenter mentioned, that the expected result of most nonfiction is zero. But in my opinion, that's largely because most nonfiction today is built like software in built like software in the 90s, without proper user-facing iteration and refinement. I wrote a whole thing about it[2].
Books created as a cynical cash-grab are already negative value in terms of time investment and opportunity cost. I think they're only worth getting into if you care enough about it (either the end result or the activity) to do it regardless of the money. And then, only once that's true, perhaps start looking for ways to optimize it as a process and product.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B00J77JH5G/allbooks [2] https://helpthisbook.com/robfitz/useful/
It's sad and entirely our fault. We didn't fail but we did lose our way. Here's how I see it:
1. Lost our way on recommendations. When I showed up the company was convinced that engagement equals quality. That's not true and it gets even more pronounced if you pay people to game your recommendation system. I think we were boosting articles that made people think we were a site for clickbait. The canonical example for HN is "Why NodeJS is dead" by a new programmer with zero experience or context. Readers noticed this, but worse, so did authors. And so we lost the incentive for a lot of the best and most interesting authors to bother because they were getting swamped by content-mill type authors. As of December, about 30% of our recommendations are generated by a new system that is picking much higher quality articles that have been vetted for substance over clickbait. This is getting a lot better, rapidly.
2. Got lost thinking about the creator economy, when we should have kept thinking about doers. Distribution was our winning value proposition (on top of simple free tools). We were built to find and boost individual articles and that meant that anyone with something great to say had a chance to get their story boosted, often by a lot. This is my original background in publishing: working at O'Reilly helping them publish programming books that were written by programmers. For a lot of topics, personal experience trumps everything. Not to knock creators, but by definition full time content creation gets in the way of having personal experiences that are worth writing about. We are partly through fixing this and #1.
Those are the two most obvious ones. But then there's a longer list. We competed with our platform publishers by starting our own in house publications. Those are shut down now. We started but didn't finish a number of redesigns and so the tools didn't get better for a couple of years. We're past that now and are putting out table stakes features again and some innovations too.
What I told our investors was that there was a huge pile of shit to dig out of, but that it would be worthwhile eventually. And I still believe both that there is a lot more to do and also that it'll be worthwhile.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Interesting to see how long even the industry insiders failed to take YC seriously. And then once it was working, they flipped immediately to complaining that YC was too powerful and too influential (unbeatable network effect, seed/A valuation inflation, and so on).
I also remember the constant naysaying about scalability and batch size. Our batch was ~19 companies. People kept naysaying, "Well this model is fine for now, but it will never work past 20 teams."
PG would always reply with something like, "Yeah, they said that when we had fewer than 10 teams also. We aren't thinking too far ahead; each batch, we just find the next bottleneck and solve it, and we'll see how far that gets us." Which evidently got them pretty far. A lovely example of doing things that don't scale.
It’s my responsibility more than it is Rob’s.
It was January 2012. I was still learning how to coach the story out of my interviewees. I’ve done a lot of personal work over the last decade to get better and better at that.
I appreciate that Rob trusted me with such a vulnerable story back then. Rob, if you’re reading this thank you.
As a side note since you're here, I'm super psyched that you've taken the time to share what you've learned in your new book -- it's the next one up on my list for serious study, and I couldn't be more excited about it. Based on the reviews so far, it looks like you've written something really special and that I'm in for a real treat. Can't wait :)
To a lesser extent, I also didn't exactly expect this to hit frontpage, so I'd sort of assumed that the only people who would see it were people who already knew me.
I'm still not sure about the answer to that, but this has at least prompted me to give it a proper think and decide whether I want to try to appeal to "the world" or just stay focused on my own little orbit. No idea where I'll end up, but it's an interesting question, and I appreciate you giving me the nudge to take it seriously.
Using a node based workflow with comfyUI, also being able to draw, also being able to train on your own images in a lora, and effectively using control nets and masks: different story...
I see, in the near future, a workflow by artists, where they themselves draw a sketch, with composition information, then use that as a base for 'rendering' the image drawn, with clean up with masking and hand drawing. lowering the time to output images.
Commercial artists will be competing, on many aspects that have nothing to do with the quality of their art itself. One of those factors is speed, and quantity. Other non-artistic aspects artists compete with are marketing, sales and attention.
Just like the artisan weavers back in the day were competing with inferior quality automatic loom machines. Focusing on quality over all others misses what it means to be in a society and meeting the needs of society.
Sometimes good enough is better than the best if it's more accessible/cheaper.
I see no such tooling a-la comfyUI available for text generation... everyone seems to be reliant on one-shot-ting results in that space.
Very interesting to see differences between the "mature" AI coding workflow vs. the "mature" image workflow. Context and design docs vs. pipelines and modules...
I've also got a toe inside the publishing industry (which is ridicilously, hilariously tech-impaired), and this has certainly gotten me noodling over what the workflow there ought to be...