Just to elaborate on what bugged me about this essay -- probably the most important part for many domains is a single sentence, the last one in this paragraph:
Most of us can benefit from collaborating with colleagues, but some projects require people on a larger scale, and starting one of those is not for everyone. If you want to run a project like that, you'll have to become a manager, and managing well takes aptitude and interest like any other kind of work. If you don't have them, there is no middle path: you must either force yourself to learn management as a second language, or avoid such projects
"You must force yourself to learn management" is not very useful
It's basically like saying "go run a marathon in a world record time"
---
And I'd say that's the KEY difference between companies and math/art/literature
The former are necessarily collaborative -- YC even says that PREFER co-founders; they reject solo founders
Whereas math/art/literature has more of a solo feel, and so does this essay, despite the fact that PG is accomplished more in the collaborative domains
Science these days is probably more like a company, more collaborative. A hundred years ago it was probably closer to math
So I would have preferred to read about one kind of endeavor or the other; as is, it's something of a mish-mash that's not too actionable
It's more of a "cheering section" for people working mostly alone, not really practical advice
---
That said, I do appreciate his turns of phrase (going diagonally across the tracks), and the metaphor of reaching the edge of knowledge, it fractally expanding, etc.
(It's probably more that I've already gotten these ideas from his previous essays, which are mostly great)