Posit: All viral content headlines are simply lies.
You WILL believe what happened next.
Six things about X that you ACTUALLY DON’T need to know.
This will NOT change your life.
Something someone said that will NOT leave you speechless.
A person did this thing and it’s NOT weirdly mesmerizing.
The happiest people in the world do NOT actually do this.
However, that playful kitten really is quite cute.
Source Tweets: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
Thesis: “Do what you love” / “Follow your passion” is dangerous and destructive career advice.
We tend to hear it from highly successful people who have become successful doing what they love. The problem is that we do NOT hear from people who have failed to become successful by doing what they love. It’s a particularly pernicious problem in tournament-style fields with a few big winners and lots of losers: media, athletics, startups.
Better career advice may be “Do what contributes” — focus on the beneficial value created for other people versus just one’s own ego. People who contribute the most are often the most satisfied with what they do and in fields with high renumeration, make the most money.
Perhaps difficult advice since it requires focus on others versus oneself. Perhaps a bad fit with endemic narcissism in modern culture? It requires delayed gratification and may toil for many years to get the payoff of contributing value to the world, versus short-term happiness.
When a top executive gets fired and the public reasons are unclear or confusing, the most common explanation is that he or she lost support of his or her direct reports. It is generally impossible for any board or CEO to leave an executive in place when that executive’s direct reports are collectively revolting. What’s interesting: This is true in practice almost regardless of what you think of the reasons for the revolt.
If the reasons for the staff revolt are valid, then clearly a mistake has been made and must be fixed, the executive has to go. If reasons for the revolt are not valid, then there’s an even bigger cultural problem at that point, with an even broader cleanup required. But even if reasons for the revolt are not valid, the executive under fire is still right in the middle of it, has lost confidence from their troops, still goes.
Executives get paid the big bucks because their decisions impact lives and careers of 100s/K’s/10K’s of employees. Thus the short leash is justified. Another theory for high executive compensation is precisely to make it easier to take dramatic action when needed. It’s an implicit safety net. None of the preceding is intended to diagnose any specific situation, just the general pattern. I’m also not excusing any kind of bad behavior.
All of this double-underlines the importance of wise governance, leadership development, management training, and cultural integrity.
[tweet https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/467555409453002752 align=”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/rmcgahen/status/467552952543350784 align=”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/benparr/status/467553006951858176 align=”center”]A growing problem I see often now, arguably the ultimate first world problem, but still a problem, and fascinating to watch. I call it “Silicon Valley Syndrome“. A high-end applied version of the Paradox of Choice applied to genius, high-potential tech whizzes. Acute strains among Stanford grads and young alumni of the largest hot companies like Google etc. But not limited to them, it can infect anyone here.
Presents as achievements and career paralysis overload of too many great choices freezes the ability to decide, commit, and stick to one thing. Do important work for a big company, take one of 20 hot start-up offers, found your own company with any of 5-10 possible co-founders and become a junior venture capitalist? Agggh!
Not nipped in the bud, it becomes chronic, damages 5-10 prime career years. The resume becomes a saga of job hopping. Once potent potential dissipates. Years later, friends and colleagues wonder, whatever happened to X? He/she seemed to have such high potential. Such a shame. Such a waste. It rarely strikes 18-22 year olds. It often starts at age 26 after four years at the hot company. Most common between the ages of 26-32. At age 35 and older, people are either lost forever or come to their senses.
Friends of new sufferers encouraged to slap you silly, exclaim “What’s wrong with you? Pick a thing and stick with it! This is not that hard!“.
Unexpected side effect: More great opportunities open up sooner than they should for new up and comers. Then the cycle repeats.
[tweet https://twitter.com/naval/status/463851333594796032 align=”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/Megan/status/463851461550432257 align=”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/richarddjordan/status/463852220518129665 align=”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/ShaneHudson/status/463850778549960706 align=”center”]Source Tweets: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
When I was in college (1989-1993) and starting to pay attention to the world, experts, and commentators, all of them believed two things were sure.
First, Japan was going to utterly own and control the world’s technology industry and therefore the world economy. Everyone knew they had a fundamentally better system: single party government, industrial policy, government-directed economy. Coupled with Japan’s overwhelmingly superior education system, Americans had zero chance of competing with Japan in any technology area.
Second, America’s best days were behind it and my generation (Gen X) would be the first to be worse off than our parents. America was experiencing fundamental and irrevocable cultural, societal, and economic collapse. The die was cast, the results were in.
[tweet https://twitter.com/_Brett__/status/463078443505049600 align=”center”]In retrospect, both of these beliefs were artifacts of the (relatively mild) US recession of the late 80s/early 90s in addition to the Japan bubble. The paranoia peaked in ’92 w/Michael Crichton’s brilliant novel “Rising Sun“. By 1996, both of these theories were thoroughly refuted by reality and dropped down the memory hole by most people who held them. Today, we look back on books like Lester Thurow’s “Head to Head” and Clyde Prestowitz’s “Trading Places” with embarrassment and laughter.
[tweet https://twitter.com/dhammer/status/463078765145645056 align=”center”]This is not to say that the US doesn’t have plenty of challenges; but bottom-of-cycle paranoia is a real phenomenon. Japan 20 years later remains an amazing nation with enormous opportunity. I think a glorious economic renaissance is quite possible.
[tweet https://twitter.com/letsgoduke/status/463081110210371584 align=”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/dasan/status/463081166614978561 align=”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/akirareiko/status/463081202581118976 align=”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/akirareiko/status/463081342964473856 align=”center”]Here are the current advantages of mobile native apps versus the mobile web, at least as commonly used and deployed today.
Applications often have more mobile-native user interfaces, at least relative to web experiences that have not been extensively adapted for mobile.
Mobile native apps often have better performance than mobile web. This is meaningful given the latency issues with many mobile networks.
Mobile native apps often have better and more complete access to mobile hardware capabilities, This is meaningful given the rapid hardware evolution.
Mobile operating systems have acclimated users to having icons for mobile apps on their home screen versus icons for mobile web bookmarks.
Mobile native apps have easy monetization methods that the web has historically lacked, including in-app payments and recurring subscriptions.
Mobile native apps have access to OS notification feeds that web experiences don’t (or don’t easily).
The $64 billion question: Is there a software breakthrough on the way that will do for mobile what browsers did for desktops/laptops?
[tweet https://twitter.com/timburks/status/462476163466530816 align=”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/462476378227486720 align=”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/timburks/status/462477238521171968 align=”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/462477436622340096 align=”center”]Characteristics of the web that have not been recreated, or have only partially been recreated with mobile apps so far.
Universal client – One piece of code on each client device that runs all apps, removing the need to install and manage client code.
[tweet https://twitter.com/Simonkhalaf/status/462472372025425920 align=”center”]One-click App Access (“install”) – Run any app by clicking on a link.
Permissionless Innovation – No approval required by anyone to bring new web apps online; no opportunity to bottleneck or censor.
Instant Universal Updating – Make a server-side change and all running instances of the app are simultaneously upgraded.
[tweet https://twitter.com/Simonkhalaf/status/462472987971563522 align=”center”]Trivially easy creation of situation-specific apps with any programming/scripting language on any operating system. Some being just a few lines of code.
Deeply integrated Link (URL) Model, Framework, Format, Specification – Native to how apps work and how users experience them.
Trivially easy integration and layering of 3rd party services with web content apps, from search engines to social networks to Twitter.
[tweet https://twitter.com/akarve/status/462473687162048512 align=”center”]He comes at a time when most pro managers of large, long-term institutional money are deeply worried about the reverse: A world in which there is a massive surplus of capital relative to opportunities to deploy it productively to compound cash.
The approximate thought process of the median professional manager of institutional financial assets today is:
Stocks suck, bonds suck, real estate sucks. Hedge funds keep blowing up. Private equity returns are reverting to mean. Venture Capital is on the fringe at best. How can I possibly generate returns sufficient enough to fund future obligations in a low-growth, low-return world? I am very, very nervous.
The developed world is slowing and aging too fast; the developing world is not developing fast enough and the price of every asset is already high.
They and Piketty cannot both be right. Ironically, Piketty is the far more optimistic one regarding the future of capitalism, growth, and innovation.
[tweet https://twitter.com/danishism/status/460220324588822528 align”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/ramez/status/460225305668747265 align”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/460225585151623168 align”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/ramez/status/460226454127919104 align”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/460226508649291777 align”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/oakpassrd/status/460227181541457921 align”center”] [tweet https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/460227291558072320 align”center”]
Thomas Piketty in Cambridge, Massachusetts
The thesis is that the 1% will compound capital from here at such a rate as to take all the cash and leave the 99% with little. The underlying assumption seems to be that compounding large pools of capital over long periods of time is straightforward and low-risk.
First question: If that’s true, shouldn’t national pension programs like US Social Security be immediately privatized and invested the same way to receive the twin benefits of harvesting great capital compounding opportunity for the benefit of 99% and also suppressing investment returns of the 1%? Piketty walks up to this conclusion and then backs away, apparently because that would be too risky for long-term retirement assets?
But if it’s that risky for e.g. the Social Security pool, isn’t it also riskier than he says for the 1% investing their own capital? Note that the investment approach for Social Security could be to invest the entire pool like a university endowment, not individuals investing their own cash.
Second, if capital compounding will work so well for the 1%, isn’t that result of a world awash with opportunities to productively invest capital? Isn’t that world the opposite of the “secular stagnation”/”innovation is dead” world so many economists believe we are in? Isn’t that world one that is fantastic for consumers who benefit from all of the resulting innovation and technological progress? Wouldn’t Piketty’s prescriptions suppress that hypothetical scope and rate of technological and material progress?
So is Piketty therefore proposing that the 99% be made worse off absolutely in order to be better off relatively? Will the 99% be consulted at any point as to which of these scenarios they’d like to see play out? Or is the theory that liberal technocratic economists in Paris and places like it get to make those decisions on behalf of the 99%?
https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/460208638443790336 https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/460206200903069697The Smart Person Fallacy in two easy steps. “I’m smart, I can learn about situation X and figure out the way it should work.”
First step: Situation X is likely far more complex with far more moving parts and confused causes and effects than you can imagine. Autodidacts and polymaths are highly prone to this. True experts in a field are often far more skeptical about their own ability to understand. Often suffered by professional writers, journalists, commentators, columnists, analysts, investors and venture capitalists.
Second step: In many complex situations, logic matters far less than other factors — with incentives at the top of the list. So thinking your way to the answer may well be counterproductive or worse. Often suffered by intellectuals, academics, theorists, paternalistic left-wingers and venture capitalists.
Bonus step: For any mandated change to situation X, unintended consequences are likely to dominate the long term effects.
@pmarca Says 