what a great article. I've started a daily blog this year a la nik.art, but its really easy to write about surface level stuff like what my projects are or how i enjoyed a piece of media. today, i skipped the blog post, telling myself it was just a rest day because sundays, but in reality i just went through some upsetting shit and didnt really want to write what was on my mind. this post really made me realize that's kind of the point of writing though. thanks for sharing :)
Raising money fucked me up
121–130 of 147 posts
Re: Raising money fucked me up
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's much more comfortable to be the person that "could be X" than to be the person that tries to actually do it. It’s much more impressive to say you have done something than to say you’re going to do it. A friend of mine has all these failed hobbies he tells everyone he’s going to do, then gives up on. I wait a few months before telling people I’m doing something so I’m fairly confident it’s something I will carr…
> A friend of mine has all these failed hobbies he tells everyone he’s going to do IME over years, when you're talking about doing something your actually doing it is thwarted. I've noticed that that both with myself and with others. Keeping mum and going about it privately, then sharing it when done, seems to have much higher success rates. I've tried to reason through it in many different ways: talking about it sat…
I agree wholeheartedly. It's like the energy and motivation has to go somewhere, and talking too much is a vacuum.
Re: Raising money fucked me up
#123> It's much more comfortable to be the person that "could be X" than to be the person that tries to actually do it. Brilliant insight. Reminds of me this, from Theodore Roosevelt's Citizenship in a Republic: > It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose…
That was the part that stood out for me as well.
I know people who have talked that talk, never dared walk it. I am happy with myself that I have walked that walk—many times. Most of the time they have not ended up how I had hoped they would in my imagination. Other times, they did. Regardless, in all cases, I am not left here now wondering what would have happened if…
Getting a game I wrote published in 1989 or so was one that worked out. Hitchhiking from Alaska back to the Lower-48 when the salmon season closed was another.
Quitting Apple to write games for the iPhone was a big fail. When I realized it though I applied and was hired back at Apple. Until that little experiment though I had been watching apps skyrocket to the top-10 while I unable to submit an app of my own (Apple policy, of course).
I had an idea for a great fantasy novel in my head for years. Only when I finally forced myself to start to write it did I realize I really didn't have an idea for a great fantasy novel. I had part of an idea for a great fantasy novel. And then there's the middle of the story you have to write, has to be interesting…
But as I say, in all cases at least I'm not stuck in Walter Mitty's [1] shoes for the rest of my life.
Re: Raising money fucked me up
#124Re: "It's much more comfortable to be the person that 'could be X' than to be the person that tries to actually do it."
I build entertainment experiences (escape rooms, live game shows, etc.), and I find that this also applies to individual projects/products. In the early planning stages we outline the ideal contours of a project, but as we build and run into constraints we start to see the gap between our vision and execution. And, usually, it's fine. We're the only ones who can see that gap because we're the only ones who knew the original plan. Guests only see what exists. We see what almost existed, what was left on the cutting room floor.
The planning stage is the most comfortable because we don't yet have to reckon with how we have fallen short of our plan. Now, during every planning phase, there's a visceral acknowledgment that there will be a gap between vision and execution, but we make choices that attempt to make those gaps smaller or, at least, acceptable.
Re: Raising money fucked me up
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want me to ruin this for you, look up Bertrand's Paradox and The Problem Of Priors. I recently had to deal with this, ugh, I just pick a prior or two and see what the outcome looks like. I'm not sure we can calculate probability of success, but rather use probability to find losing ideas that should never be done.
Nice. What are some good books to build this sort of perspective on Probability/Randomness/Chance?
These are ~1 layer removed, but it shook me from an epistemological perspective. Basically it destroys the idea of metaphysical truth.
I'll start with the easy one that was written in native English, William James's Pragmatism. Its only 4 hours long, and teaches 1 of the 3 branches of metaphilosophy(Pragmatic). For ROI in philosophy, it doesn't get better than this. It teaches one of the 3 theories of Truth.
Next is significantly more difficult, but everyone only understands 10% of Wittgenstein. Read both early and late Wittgenstein. If I remember correctly, its ~12 hours of pain as you will barely understand him. However, it shakes foundations of math and science as you will find these are mere constructs of language. This will also teach you 1 of the 3 branches of metaphilosophy(Analytical), and teach you how language works. You really need to read both early and late. But I imagine reading early Wittgenstein will convince you to read late. Its super painful, but you should deal with the pain.
(the remaining branch of philosophy is Continental... that takes a long time to learn, but its mostly nonsensical rebuttals to Plato, take it from someone who read this for 8 years...)
Regarding that initial thought on the Problem of Priors, here is a quick youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy6xXEhbGa0
Re: Raising money fucked me up
#126> It's much more comfortable to be the person that "could be X" than to be the person that tries to actually do it. Brilliant insight. Reminds of me this, from Theodore Roosevelt's Citizenship in a Republic: > It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose…
This kind of warrior ethos outside of fantasy books or games is a huge turn off to me, it feels so anachronistic. I don’t understand why it seems so prevalent in the US, especially as a country built on Christianity that has Jesus coming as an harmless lamb to teach compassion, humility and love. Courage, devotion, perseverance, sure. Victory or defeat? No thanks.
i used to shun this kind of rhetoric when i was younger, preferring to think of myself a scholar among the Simon the chipmunks of the world, but I've come to accept that humans are made to fight. i dont think its wrong to venerate the warrior - im the farthest thing from a US citizen or a Christian, but my culture still has their folk heroes. look up lieutenant adnan if you'd like a stirring of the spirit
Re: Raising money fucked me up
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of warrior ethos outside of fantasy books or games is a huge turn off to me, it feels so anachronistic. I don’t understand why it seems so prevalent in the US, especially as a country built on Christianity that has Jesus coming as an harmless lamb to teach compassion, humility and love. Courage, devotion, perseverance, sure. Victory or defeat? No thanks.
> This kind of warrior ethos [..] feels so anachronistic. A succinct condemnation of our times.
Also a succinct condemnation of HN as a hub for strivers.
Re: Raising money fucked me up
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's less about praising your children, vs being honest with them! Don't give them false praise, and they'll be fine.
I believe the what the parent comment was referring to is the advice not to praise character, but instead praise hard work. “You’re so smart” leaves room for failure when they encounter something that challenges their image of being smart. Praising the amount of effort they put in is not something that is taken away or challenged regardless of the outcome.
One of my kids are particularly brilliant and what I found is that the combination works best, "you are smart therefore I have high expectations" AND "without doing the work being smart doesn't matter". Together this creates a self image of the capable doer.
Re: Raising money fucked me up
#129> It's much more comfortable to be the person that "could be X" than to be the person that tries to actually do it. Brilliant insight. Reminds of me this, from Theodore Roosevelt's Citizenship in a Republic: > It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose…
That was the part that stood out for me as well. I know people who have talked that talk, never dared walk it. I am happy with myself that I have walked that walk—many times. Most of the time they have not ended up how I had hoped they would in my imagination. Other times, they did. Regardless, in all cases, I am not left here now wondering what would have happened if… Getting a game I wrote published in 1989 or so w…
It is always the "what if" when looking back at the opportunities that presented themselves in life that eat at you. Things that might have been were it not for the lack of courage to try.
I rarely regret the things I did that didn't work out, it is always the things I could have done but didn't do. Reducing the number of compelling yet unexplored branches in life significantly increases life satisfaction.
Re: Raising money fucked me up
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice. What are some good books to build this sort of perspective on Probability/Randomness/Chance?
These are ~1 layer removed, but it shook me from an epistemological perspective. Basically it destroys the idea of metaphysical truth. I'll start with the easy one that was written in native English, William James's Pragmatism. Its only 4 hours long, and teaches 1 of the 3 branches of metaphilosophy(Pragmatic). For ROI in philosophy, it doesn't get better than this. It teaches one of the 3 theories of Truth. Next is…
William James i have read, both "Pragmatism"(not completely though) and "Talks to Teachers" (my favourite) but not much of Wittgenstein.
There is a lot here which jives with ancient Hindu Schools of Philosophy, specifically; Nyaya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyaya), Vaisheshika (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaisheshika) and Charvaka (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka).
Bayesian epistemology with priors have always been problematic since if there were no constraints on prior beliefs than anything goes. But in order to constrain the priors you need to know the distribution to calculate probabilities.