Enough
m.signalvnoise.com
Enough
1–10 of 82 posts
Re: Enough
#2I believe that this also applies, to a very long extend, to open source projects. Both the ones having companies with financial interests and even the ones without such a direct profitability interest. So, once a given OSS starts to be popular, suddenly, all the use cases must be covered, despite the fact that there are, often, obvious design tensions. What happens is: complexity, lack of focus, and ultimately even the risk of becoming irrelevant, since the original use case that made a given software successful is no longer the main target, so newer softwares just specializing on that use case will eventually win the favor of users.
Re: Enough
#3TLDR DHH publicly rationalizes his own mediocrity using various flawed arguments.
Re: Enough
#4TLDR DHH publicly rationalizes his own mediocrity using various flawed arguments.
> using various flawed arguments
Care to offer some counter arguments?
Re: Enough
#5TL;DR - you don't have to chase exponential growth; there are other business models which might suit your business better.
Perhaps a title change? It sounds awfully dramatic as it stands.
Re: Enough
#6This mindset applies to many things besides growth. For example, how much money (as an annual income) is enough for you? Have you ever sat down and reasoned it out? I see many people stuck chasing larger and larger payouts, to the extent it makes them unhappy or even unwell, who never stopped to consider how much money was enough.
Re: Enough
#7TLDR DHH publicly rationalizes his own mediocrity using various flawed arguments.
If DHH reps mediocrity in your mind I'd love to see your list of those who you consider successful.
Re: Enough
#8TLDR DHH publicly rationalizes his own mediocrity using various flawed arguments.
> using various flawed arguments Care to offer some counter arguments?
His initial argument is that it's okay to be mediocre because continuous success is just a "paradigm." That much was already clear. His argument falls apart when he tries to justify having enough, since that contradicts his initial argument. If continuous success isn't written in stone, then neither is having enough.
Nokia's anecdotal demise isn't a reason to not seek continuous success. In fact, one could use that same anecdote to argue that having enough leads to failure.
Distance between a founder and the product isn't an argument for not seeking continuous success. Some people prefer that distance and consider separation of labor to be more efficient.
It's clear that DHH has some bias against success. Given articles like this and his public bet that Facebook's share price would fail. It isn't based in logic though, just ideology.
Re: Enough
#9The whole piece is a bit verbose, but the writer has a point. A lot of people are never satisfied, and that doesn't make the world a better place.
The irony is unsatisfaction is rewarded. You can earn millions of dollars with making the world less beautifull, by selling people bad loanes or artificially keeping medicine prices high.
I don't know if people can learn to have enough, or 'the system' must enforce it a little bit.
Re: Enough
#10TLDR DHH publicly rationalizes his own mediocrity using various flawed arguments.
If DHH reps mediocrity in your mind I'd love to see your list of those who you consider successful.
Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Drew Houston, Travis Kalanick... The list goes on.