(Compare with anglophile GCL?)
Refactoring KST’s (from Rainer?) “only 2 games worth playing, the opening game and the endgame”, i propose: “only 2 things worth doing: showing its possible or making it easy”
(Compare with anglophile GCL?)
Refactoring KST’s (from Rainer?) “only 2 games worth playing, the opening game and the endgame”, i propose: “only 2 things worth doing: showing its possible or making it easy”
- the feint direct shows a touch is possible
- the direct is the easiest possible touch
Of course, that almost never happens. RPF (like TAE) says that if you want to show it's possible, you have to schlep a lot beforehand discovering what's impossible ("you are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike"); Moore's Crossing the Chasm (1991) says that if you want to make it easy, you have to schlep a lot beforehand providing value to people who can make use of your stuff even before it's easy ("You are in a twisty maze of passageways, all different").EDIT: Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1MlXmNSL7s#t=210s
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by fighting back —PH
With gratitude, i’d already riffen on this with “… [YC] proved its salt…”
Riffing on the schlep of “talking to users” my current (more designori-oriented?) variant is “building a marketplace Elon style”
which would be? (should I comment out my Elon filter?)
Stylewise I'm far more familiar with the agoric stoa*: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
* in both its archeological and its modern incarnations