I was using tactics and strategy interchangeably, as in the sports sense. Probably should have been more clear, but I agree with your point. Also business is much more complicated than sports, where the rules are concrete. I was just using it as an example that what matters is using the talents of the team instead of a framework for management.
All these frameworks for managing people matter much less than creating a team of quality people. Think of it like sports. Sure a good manager or coach can get the most of the players on the team. They might even add tactics and play above their level. But when it comes down to it, what matters the most in the skill set of the players. The best coaching in the world isn’t going to help me and my friends beat a pro sports team. Same thing for teams inside companies. Strategy does matter, but quality matters much more.
I don't like this argument at all. You are trying to enforce excess rules and micromanagements on teachers. I live in an area where teachers are paid well, and know a lot of educator who have been at it for 20+ years. Guess what, most them aren't trying to game the system. They care about their students and doing a good job. Sure some people might just try to coast, but it's not the majority. By trying to punish this minority, you end up hurting everyone.
Teaching jobs don't exist in a vacuum, and the reason to have pay based on seniority is simple. If you want competent people to go into the profession from the start, they need to know they have a steady and worthwhile career. If you can provide that, like NJ does, (and where I live in NY does) then you might actually get good teachers. If instead you make it unappealing and difficult because of uncertainty, you will only get people who are incompetent and have no other options.
The idea of an anarcho-capitalist society functioning peacefully is pure delusion and ignores basically everything from history and observations of reality. It most importantly ignores the concept of power. There would be no free exchange at all. It would be all coercion all the time, an actual hellworld.
Don’t worry, it won’t happen. This is just a desperate attempt by Facebook to not be the website where your insane Aunt posts QAnon stuff. It’s not appealing enough to last. It’s just like crypto, a solution searching for a problem to solve. Eventually it will spike and then fade when people realize they get no real benefit from it.
It's not classy in the least, it's cowardice. This isn't just a game, it's Hans career/future/livelihood. I have no idea if he cheated OTB. I know his history but that doesn't mean it happened in this instance. As for Magnus, what he's doing is just bullying. He knows he's big enough and can throw his weight around. He can probably end Hans top level career without saying a word just by refusing to play in events Hans is at. It's a joke and completely unsporting. If you are going to do that, have the decency to actually make a statement or bring forth evidence instead of just making the rules yourself and how you see fit.
Sorry to hijack your comment and kind of unrelated, but does anyone have any books that discuss the beginning of mass media/newspapers. Your comment about the internet brining back the “attention” economy has me interested in the origins of mass media. Just seems like it would be an interesting topic that probably has some relevance today.
Does a good way of finding these place exist? I would guess word of mouth and your network are best. As someone not super plugged into the VC world, and who is mostly interest in good sold work and interesting problems, and not the hype around “being a startup” I would be interested in knowing.
Agreed but I do think a lot of people project into the future about “what could be a problem” and solve for that. I would guess it’s very common. I’ve seen it done and done it myself. You say to yourself “well if this becomes popular, I won’t want people to know the next word”, which sounds reasonable but it stops things from getting done.
What’s always been surprising to me is that more people don’t recognize it. My background didn’t give me the education I’m wish I had either, in fact I got the opposite. But it didn’t take all that long in the real world to see it. Maybe people just accept what they see and roll with it.
Yea absolutely. So much of it is a shell game (in some companies) where you attempt to shift blame and take credit for successes. Those type of consultancies help facilitate the game.
People want all the rewards with none of the risk. But what’s funny is they are still taking the risk of failure. It’s more that they can fail and shift all blame away by saying “we did it all right, it just didn’t work”. It’s easier than doing the work themselves.
I just think we would all be better off if we told people it’s OK to try and fail, as long as we learn from those failures. We need to support people trying new things. If we just follow prevailing wisdom, we can only tackle problems that are already solved.
My theory is that people have been trained and rewarded for being “not wrong”. Strategy requires you to take a stance and get specific. Sometimes the strategy will not work.
I think we need to do a better job of encouraging this sort of thinking. I don’t remember where I heard but it was something along the lines of “we tell kids they can be whatever they want and then actively discourage them when they take the necessary steps to do those things by operating outside the box”. So this type of thinking becomes normal. Then when it comes to strategize people try to follow “best practices” and “proven techniques” which is kind of the opposite of strategy.
I think you get it better than they do. The biggest difference I notice is that in the early days of the web, people solved problems they had or saw and benefited from it. Now with crypto, all I see is a solution in search of a problem.
It's obvious to you because you are following a logical train of thought. These antivax people always do the same nonsense argument. It goes, COVID has risks and vaccines have risks, therefore it's impossible to know which is worse. It's literally the dril drunk driving tweet[1].
Yea I want tools to be similar how I write programs. Solve one problem and solve it well. If you need more functionality, write another small program for that problem and integrate.
Integrating can be tricky, but having one tool try to do everything usually means it does nothing well.
Ideally we will see more effort spent on straightforward, opinionated tools that allow integration. That’s my hope at least.
I think this is pretty good advice. I think about if I should move on as two parts.
1. Am I learning? Improving Skills? Gaining Insight? Working with Interesting People/Problems?
2. Am I getting paid enough for the value I provide?
The best positions have both, but it's not always that simple. I can forgo 2 for a time if 1 is really happening because in the end, the skills will eventually lead to better prospects. I also can do a boring not as growing job if it pays well. I think people get stuck though after all their learning and skill building and the friction of finding something new stops them. (I know from experience, its a lot of effort to switch things up)
I’ve always wondered if it has something to do with the software building process in general. First you get burned a few times because you overlook edge cases. As your skills improve, you get better at anticipating these problems. But then you reach a point where it goes overboard. You start seeing ghosts that aren’t there and solving problems that don’t exist. The mindset that helped you improve as a developer eventually makes you over think things and you need to go back to focusing on solving specific problems.