51–60 of 65 posts
I don't understand how a clickbait title submitted as-is, a "Source:Internet" image or a shallow LinkedIn-type post (mostly written by a LLM?) can get any traction on here. Clearly a good Rorschach test, though.
Post rationalisation of decisions - everyone does it.
We expect comitted founders to make the best of their constraints. This founder is doing that by putting a positive spin on their constraints in their social media posts. Fallibility is important and I hope that founder is honest with their team, but at the same time keeping a positive public narrative about your company is also important. Not everyone has to perform their growing pains in public.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/feb/09/noki...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. I write 70% of it and then Claude helps me refine it by enhancing vocab, structure and grammar. Ideally I would like to just use it fix grammar but atleast this way I am writing more and my drafts just don’t sit in notes.
The 30% you're outsourcing are where the growth happens. If you don't have any idea how to improve beyond a vague feeling that AI outputs look "better", I recommend checking out the book "What Is Good Writing?" by the linguist Geoffrey J. Huck. It should give you a clear understanding of your impressions and a clear direction.
It's ironic that there's a link to a YouTube video praising James Dyson at the bottom of this post, because Dyson is an example of someone whose narrative is bullshit. The clever physics and engineering in Dyson's products don't result in superior products. Have a look around the Dyson Institute after hours and you'll see the cleaners using Henry vacuum cleaners made by Numatic.
James Dyson, the salesman of (slightly crap) vacuum cleaners to the middle classes?
I believe he was called out by those middles classes for advocating Brexit to "boost British industry" and invest in Britain, then promptly shifting his operations to Singapore.
I do understand the core message but I don't get why the author seems upset about it. Sounds like people complaining that instagram models show fake "fake" life. LinkedIn is a social network. Professionals show off how successful and hirable they are, or companies show how nice it is to work there. I personally can't take this self promotion that has become very necessary in many parts of our industry so I stay clear…
Often these things lead to wrong motivations for people who consider them as experts
It's ironic that there's a link to a YouTube video praising James Dyson at the bottom of this post, because Dyson is an example of someone whose narrative is bullshit. The clever physics and engineering in Dyson's products don't result in superior products. Have a look around the Dyson Institute after hours and you'll see the cleaners using Henry vacuum cleaners made by Numatic.
His modus operandi is to take something that has an inherent compromise, which exists for a specific reason, and to remove that compromise, thereby slightly improving one thing at the larger expense of something else.
The most obvious example is his vacuum cleaners - his big "innovation" was to remove the bag, which exists to make it easy to empty and to stop the dust from clogging up the workings of the machine, at the expense of a very small amount of suction power. Reviews everywhere say the same thing, always - they last no time at all before the suction power drops substantially because of the clogging-up. I've heard so many times about people making money by rescuing and reselling dumped Dyson vacuum cleaners that "just" needed dismantling and thoroughly cleaning.
Another example is hand dryers - basically just increase the power at the expense of (1) deafening noise and (2) blasting damp germ-filled air everywhere, for which they had to be banned from being installed at any NHS site in the UK, notwithstanding their marketing claims about somehow purifying the blasted air.
He's clearly a brilliant businessman - he's made a fortune from selling these items via top-notch marketing. But he's wrongly described as an "inventor", one of those words a certain class of people love to call themselves. At what point does the act of removing a carefully-designed compromise feature (a fix to one issue at the relatively small expense of something else - a net positive) from an existing piece of equipment, become inventing something new?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How?
Cognitive dissonance is holding conflicting beliefs simultaneously. For example, believing that immigrants are lazy and job-shy whilst also believing that they are taking all the jobs. What you described sounds more like either a lack of awareness or revisionism (depending on how conscious it is). There are parallels, though, and I don't like the snark you're getting from other replies here. Both relate to how identi…
The resolution is to revise the motivations for doing whatever it was that turned out better.
Because people do a lot to avoid cognitive dissonance
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the ones that are not focused on professional, commercial or business opportunities, like LinkedIn is, at least remove one of the motivations to lie. Those that offer full anonymity, remove another.
Ah, 4chan, the final bastion of truth
We weren't discussing truth, but honesty. Someone deluded can still be honest given what they (falsely) believe.
Besides, I wrote about how there are multiple incentives to lie, and a platform were you're not having a financial interest in what you write, removes some big ones. Doesn't mean something like 4chan doesn't have others.
Still, I'd expect to find a homest to god personal confession in 4chan or Reddit way more than on LinkedIn.