Is this a story about Kevin Kelly or is this an autobiography? It purports to be the former but it's largely about the author's work history. It sort of gestures vaguely at being an interview with Kevin but there's only about four paragraphs in the entire article that contain quotes from him in response to things the author asked, and most of these are about his collection of knick-knacks.
I kept on waiting for a series of questions that acted as springboards for long responses from Kelly that included him talking about the value of an approach to work that he calls "flounder mode" but they never came; the only appearance of "flounder" is in the title. It's an extended intro to an interview that never actually comes. You talked with Kelly all day and hooray, great for you meeting one of your idols! But you barely tell us a single thing he said.
I first thought this is about Kevin Kelly. Then somewhere midway I thought I was reading an autobiography. It was only towards the latter half that I realized this is the author talking about Kevin Kelly and visiting his house.
Even though the language is very simple, the writing is quite convoluted.
it's an autobiography with the lens of "here's how my philosophy of life has been influenced by kelly". I found it more interesting than your summary led me to expect!
If you want a list of quotes by Kevin Kelly, I'm sure they are just a Google search away. Sometimes, the reader has to do a little work - in this case, to determine what 'Flounder' means. Perhaps it means just that, which is to fumble around awkwardly, kinda like a fish out of water? It's kind of a murky word, and we don't really know how to use it in a sentence. It actually matches the whole tone of the article pretty well, especially when the author talks about how they may have made a huge mistake with their career by bouncing around and trying whatever seems interesting.
Just after I took on my new role, I wrote to Kevin Kelly and asked if I could meet him (I assumed he wouldn't know who I was, even though we've met informally, but he did). I wanted to talk to him about talking about how to be optimistic about technology. At my heart, I still remain positive about the contributions and opportunities of technology, but I've increasingly struggled to know how to convey, qualify or transmit that. He immediately accepted, I visited him in his tower, and we had a great, sprawling conversation. Like this author, he renewed my confidence in that framing, and the importance of it existing in the world. That single conversation has kept me going more than anything else over the last three or so years.
I realise in reading this, that I never wrote after the fact to say thanks for that: so, thanks, KK, for everything.
i am! oblomovka runs off a machine on my desk, which tends to crash whenever I walk out of my house, like today. However, this is an excellent notification that I'm now writing enough to maybe make it a bit more resilient.
The tech sector has grown and changed so much. It has gotten much more "professional" which is arguably good but it this in turn promotes a fair amount of "corporate stooge" behavior. I am guilty here for sure, it is really easy to focus on levels, promo packets, OKRs, especially as you age and responsibility grows and forget what make this industry amazing in the first place.
Good reminder to focus on direction and interests and what you feel should be built. Reminds be a bit of the opening section of "The Art of Doing Science and Engineering" which I only came across because I liked other Stripe press books.
You also meet more interesting and passionate people if you pick a direction vs a destination.
Brie, author of the profile here. Funny you mention Art of Doing Science and Engineering. There was a footnote to You and Your Research in an early draft but it hit the cutting room floor in edits. (Also, I helped get Stripe Press off the ground–including tracking down rights to Art of Doing Science and Engineering–so it warms my heart to hear that's how you first came to the essay/speech).
When I met you at Stripe you seemed to me the person with strategic foresight and iron discipline— the kind that gets endless opportunities without even trying. I was hopelessly floundering by comparison, and not in a good Kevin Kelly way. I don’t know if people will think of you in 300 years (the day is young!) but you were definitely a role model for what discipline and great execution look like.
You describe a way of living that is probably much more common than the ramen scurvy CEO lifestyle, but it doesn't get written about because people want to read about financial success and winning at zero sum games.
The typical "success" archetype is often at the peak of some hierarchy (e.g. CEO) where the vast majority in the game literally cannot occupy the top positions. So in those situations most participants are losers. Sounds like you found a way to quietly opt out of that framing of success e.g. in your time at Stripe.
Thank you for normalizing shiny object syndrome floundering!
I always wondered why Stripe Press was a thing. Why was a financial services company publishing books about the lives of great engineers? I'm very happy you did though, the books themselves are a great read, not to mention they are very beautiful. I really liked "The Dream Machine" in particular
Why did you want to start Stripe Press in the first place? How did you get the support to do it?
I too would like to hear more from people with similar approaches to work, career and technology to KK. However, it seems like there’s a large amount of survivorship bias at play when people talk about just following their interests and it leading to financial security and work freedom.
It’s not quite about following your interest. It’s learning how to take an interest in your interests, IMO.
Basically if you pursue your interest half heartedly or without the rigor and discipline that you would under pressure of work, you would probably never do anything interesting with your interests. But if you held yourself to the same standard of excellence in your interests that you do in work, then your interests will take on a quality that allows it to stand on its own.
Meh I took a serious left turn after college and my first few jobs. Much happier now.
Work on Capitol Hill for less than a year then tech outsourcing then consulting. Realized it was boring, useless, and mind numbing and moved across the world. Now have multiple businesses, more than 30 employees across those business, and I get to have fun. It's stressful sometimes but I think we've kicked the stress finally (at 37). Now it's just fun and we get to see what we can pull off when we want to.
Most people simply quit or aren't willing to do the uncomfortable things. It's uncomfortable to be unbothered. But I certainly didn't follow my interests. I used my interests to get better at what was in front of us. Gotta pay the bills and give people what they want, I just put my own spin on it.
As a young person in the United States, the main concern is that if you aren't one of the greatest at what you do, you'll be doomed to a life of increasing poverty: food derived from vegetable oils and chemically bleached wheat, apartments of grey laminate flooring and concrete, crime, people who derive their actions from social media, a 60 minute commute---as the real world: nature, people who are present, quality food, becomes increasingly out of reach.
> As a young person in the United States, the main concern is that if you aren't one of the greatest at what you do, you'll be doomed to a life of increasing poverty
In psychology there’s a concept called splitting, or dichotomous thinking, where a person only thinks of things in concepts of their extremes. Either the most extreme good outcome, or the most extreme bad outcome. They might see people or public figures as either amazing or evil. The Wikipedia page has a primer on it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology) But you don’t need a Wikipedia article or psychology concepts to realize that there are more outcomes than extreme success or increasing poverty.
I’m fascinated by how these concepts that were once relegated to psychology and therapy have started to become commonplace among young people on the internet. They’re not seen as failure modes in thinking, but rather an obvious conclusion from whatever they’ve been consuming so much of online.
The comment above is a prime example. Even the obsession over “food derived from vegetable oils and chemically bleached wheat” is a confusing conclusion for me, someone who has had no problem avoiding wheat products and eating healthy on a budget with even minimal effort. The food topic is particularly strange because it’s not that hard to learn basic cooking skills, buy cheap vegetable, and cook quick and easy meals. Yet I continue talking to young people who simultaneously fret about food quality while filling their diets with nothing but processed and fast foods, many of which are more expensive than cooking basic fast meals.
I don’t know what else to say, other than the above style of thinking is, in my experience, indicative of what happens when someone collects too much perspective from the internet and not enough from the real world. Given the context of this comment section, I can only recommend trying to reevaluate, disconnect from the internet a little more, and make an effort to reconnect with the real world
The binary perspective gives an excuse to give up.
The reasonable perspective does not. It demonstrates that though agency is limited it does exist.
Our life outcomes are connected to our actions. For many their circumstances make this an unpleasant thought, thus binary thinking protect their self-image. For some that's all they have left.
"the greatest at what you do" is by definition a zero sum framing that will lead 99.999% of participants to view their lives as a failure. It is literally madness to make this your goal.
The alternative is to choose to be very good at what you do, which has a good chance of success if you try hard at something you care about.
I feel like very good isn't enough as employers want the best candidates but not the average candidates, and if you're sort of in the middle then the so-so companies don't want you either because they think you'll leave.
Something about the increased social stratification of our times, which also has to do with increased transportation and communication.
Might also depend on your locale. Plumber in Germany might be better than SWE in Texas.
Hiring is not a zero sum game (growth of the company/economy through good hiring means more positions are created). I've hired software developers before and what I was looking for was somebody who commits code that works and is good quality. I don't care about their ranking on some imaginary programmer hierarchy. You probably don't want to work at a company where they do.
No, not a fan of Leetcode either, nor imaginary measures of social prestige.
We may not necessarily disagree with any of each other's points, but lack of mutual context and having different lived experience makes our words have different meaning.
I’m not from the US, but from my visits there and continuous reading of the living conditions in America this comment seems painfully true. As someone living in Israel I’m grateful we don’t live in those extremes.
Many successful American tech founders and entrepreneurs have strong religious or spiritual beliefs — I believe it's part of the unique competitive advantage and edge in this industry
Many successful American tech founders and entrepreneurs don't have strong religious or spiritual beliefs. Both are true.
I think finding self-motivation in life is important, particularly for entrepreneurs, but there are many sources.
I've never thought the SV / San Fran scene was particularly religious. I'd have guessed religion was under-represented there compared to the rest of the US.
I wonder what the correlation / causation is on that versus having a supportive family and community.
That is, if you took someone who's an atheist, would making them religious (left as an exercise to the reader) make them measurably more successful? Or is it that people who already have supportive families tend to come from religious families, and tend to inherit their parents' religion?
As someone who isn't particularly religious, but grew up in a religious household, and as someone married to a very religious person (different religions), I believe it's all about outlook.
Religion tends to give you several quite positive beliefs about the world that aren't entirely logical. Things like karma, the golden rule, belief in a plan, etc.
Generally speaking I also believe that religious people are more willing to trust and forgive. These are all pretty positive things.
And finally I believe religious people have a higher sense of duty to others, but the better term is probably responsibilism.
I really appreciated hearing about the author’s journey and relating it to my own so far.
It was only about two years ago that I was obsessed with the idea of starting my own ambitious startup and “conquering the world”, but I’m now moreso considering the idea that I can have a significant positive impact on the world through building and contributing to software in a more “pro-bono” way.
As kk said in the article:
> “I think one of the least interesting reasons to be interested in something is money,”
I particularly like feeling like you need permission to show optimism and enthusiasm about your work.
I also particularly like this bit:
“Greatness is overrated,” he said, and I perked up. “It’s a form of extremism, and it comes with extreme vices that I have no interest in. Steve Jobs was a jerk. Bob Dylan is a jerk.”
...but mostly out of a sense of confirmation bias. It's nice to know that there are smart, accomplished people out there who share my view that Steve Jobs and Bob Dylan are jerks.
One thing this helped crystallize for me, in my position as a nascent team leader, is the position that: "If something about your daily work sucks, let's talk about it. That's the first step to seeing if we can fix it."
This seems like - not a panacea? But a solid strategy to help uncover many problems in an organization.
"G-Chat with Charleton, in which he would interview Google executives while sitting with them in a two-person snuggie." What a sight that must have been haha
This so much! great article and Kelly sounds like the type of person I would love to meet..
- having just endured time in a startup that was all about PMF, metrics and the 'growth flywheel', that pushed aside human intuition and creativity in place of 'winning'. It's indeed such a waste of humanity that the Reid hoffman's and Bezos's of the world can push inhuman cultural tropes of "winning" over our humanity. Just who is winning, the board, the VCs certainly not the person who loses his soul? On top of that, in today's world AI Slop and social media and lunatic linkedin influencers pushing those same memes hyped to eleven by AI tools, relentlessly on young founders and engineers via push notifications. day and night -what message do we deliver to ourselves?.
Amazon for all its technical chops and innovation and LinkedIn are anti-patterns in that regard. Do not follow.
Also, its too bad that silicon valley is so ageist that the lessons and wisdom of the older generation tend to get forgotten or cast aside-wish that we could at least take advantage of capitalism in our culture instead of it taking advantage of us
When we lose the pleasure of finding things out, going with our passions and intution and lose our love of creativity and invention, curiosity, patience and empathy we loose who we are as a human in society
A very cathartic read. I enjoyed this, and I really related to the author's anxieties.
Our economics has created a collective belief that if you aren't trying to be the best at playing the game, then you will be left behind in poverty. Mediocrity is shunned in Silicon Valley, and the rise of social media has only inflated that idea. We're increasingly checking our humanity at the door so we can be great, and sacrifice ourselves at the altar of capitalism. For what? So we can look ourselves in the mirror and believe we are one of the special chosen ones?
Is this a story about Kevin Kelly or is this an autobiography? It purports to be the former but it's largely about the author's work history. It sort of gestures vaguely at being an interview with Kevin but there's only about four paragraphs in the entire article that contain quotes from him in response to things the author asked, and most of these are about his collection of knick-knacks.
I kept on waiting for a series of questions that acted as springboards for long responses from Kelly that included him talking about the value of an approach to work that he calls "flounder mode" but they never came; the only appearance of "flounder" is in the title. It's an extended intro to an interview that never actually comes. You talked with Kelly all day and hooray, great for you meeting one of your idols! But you barely tell us a single thing he said.
I first thought this is about Kevin Kelly. Then somewhere midway I thought I was reading an autobiography. It was only towards the latter half that I realized this is the author talking about Kevin Kelly and visiting his house.
Even though the language is very simple, the writing is quite convoluted.
it's an autobiography with the lens of "here's how my philosophy of life has been influenced by kelly". I found it more interesting than your summary led me to expect!
If you want a list of quotes by Kevin Kelly, I'm sure they are just a Google search away. Sometimes, the reader has to do a little work - in this case, to determine what 'Flounder' means. Perhaps it means just that, which is to fumble around awkwardly, kinda like a fish out of water? It's kind of a murky word, and we don't really know how to use it in a sentence. It actually matches the whole tone of the article pretty well, especially when the author talks about how they may have made a huge mistake with their career by bouncing around and trying whatever seems interesting.
He seems like a really cool guy but I also was hoping for a definition of "flounder mode".
K I thought I was crazy but you nailed it . What did I just read
Just after I took on my new role, I wrote to Kevin Kelly and asked if I could meet him (I assumed he wouldn't know who I was, even though we've met informally, but he did). I wanted to talk to him about talking about how to be optimistic about technology. At my heart, I still remain positive about the contributions and opportunities of technology, but I've increasingly struggled to know how to convey, qualify or transmit that. He immediately accepted, I visited him in his tower, and we had a great, sprawling conversation. Like this author, he renewed my confidence in that framing, and the importance of it existing in the world. That single conversation has kept me going more than anything else over the last three or so years.
I realise in reading this, that I never wrote after the fact to say thanks for that: so, thanks, KK, for everything.
Since you're here, can I ask if you're still writing/publishing anywhere? Long-time fan.
(Alternative comment: I think oblomovka's down).
i am! oblomovka runs off a machine on my desk, which tends to crash whenever I walk out of my house, like today. However, this is an excellent notification that I'm now writing enough to maybe make it a bit more resilient.
(For real dannyobrien completists, I also write small more regular email newsletter at https://buttondown.com/dannyob of my work within the Filecoin Extended Cinematic Universe (which includes IPFS, libp2p, iroh, Bluesky, Spritely Institute, Guardian Project, Internet Archive, Prelinger Archive, DWeb Community, Foresight Institute, EFF, Muckrock, etc see https://ffdweb.org/projects , https://fil.org/ecosystem-explorer , https://directory.plnetwork.io/projects?focusAreas=Digital+H... ). It's pretty lowkey though.
Many thanks for the links, I'll dig into them.
> oblomovka runs off a machine on my desk, which tends to crash whenever I walk out of my house
Your essay on moving to the edge when everyone else is moving to the centre had a big effect on me at the time. I think it was prescient.
though those crashes show the limitations!
This was a breath of fresh air.
The tech sector has grown and changed so much. It has gotten much more "professional" which is arguably good but it this in turn promotes a fair amount of "corporate stooge" behavior. I am guilty here for sure, it is really easy to focus on levels, promo packets, OKRs, especially as you age and responsibility grows and forget what make this industry amazing in the first place.
Good reminder to focus on direction and interests and what you feel should be built. Reminds be a bit of the opening section of "The Art of Doing Science and Engineering" which I only came across because I liked other Stripe press books.
You also meet more interesting and passionate people if you pick a direction vs a destination.
Brie, author of the profile here. Funny you mention Art of Doing Science and Engineering. There was a footnote to You and Your Research in an early draft but it hit the cutting room floor in edits. (Also, I helped get Stripe Press off the ground–including tracking down rights to Art of Doing Science and Engineering–so it warms my heart to hear that's how you first came to the essay/speech).
When I met you at Stripe you seemed to me the person with strategic foresight and iron discipline— the kind that gets endless opportunities without even trying. I was hopelessly floundering by comparison, and not in a good Kevin Kelly way. I don’t know if people will think of you in 300 years (the day is young!) but you were definitely a role model for what discipline and great execution look like.
Thanks for sharing this, great article!
You describe a way of living that is probably much more common than the ramen scurvy CEO lifestyle, but it doesn't get written about because people want to read about financial success and winning at zero sum games.
The typical "success" archetype is often at the peak of some hierarchy (e.g. CEO) where the vast majority in the game literally cannot occupy the top positions. So in those situations most participants are losers. Sounds like you found a way to quietly opt out of that framing of success e.g. in your time at Stripe.
Thank you for normalizing shiny object syndrome floundering!
I always wondered why Stripe Press was a thing. Why was a financial services company publishing books about the lives of great engineers? I'm very happy you did though, the books themselves are a great read, not to mention they are very beautiful. I really liked "The Dream Machine" in particular
Why did you want to start Stripe Press in the first place? How did you get the support to do it?
Thank you for all your work! I have several Stripe Press books, especially enjoyed Revolt of the Public and Pieces of the Action.
I too would like to hear more from people with similar approaches to work, career and technology to KK. However, it seems like there’s a large amount of survivorship bias at play when people talk about just following their interests and it leading to financial security and work freedom.
It’s not quite about following your interest. It’s learning how to take an interest in your interests, IMO.
Basically if you pursue your interest half heartedly or without the rigor and discipline that you would under pressure of work, you would probably never do anything interesting with your interests. But if you held yourself to the same standard of excellence in your interests that you do in work, then your interests will take on a quality that allows it to stand on its own.
Meh I took a serious left turn after college and my first few jobs. Much happier now.
Work on Capitol Hill for less than a year then tech outsourcing then consulting. Realized it was boring, useless, and mind numbing and moved across the world. Now have multiple businesses, more than 30 employees across those business, and I get to have fun. It's stressful sometimes but I think we've kicked the stress finally (at 37). Now it's just fun and we get to see what we can pull off when we want to.
Most people simply quit or aren't willing to do the uncomfortable things. It's uncomfortable to be unbothered. But I certainly didn't follow my interests. I used my interests to get better at what was in front of us. Gotta pay the bills and give people what they want, I just put my own spin on it.
As a young person in the United States, the main concern is that if you aren't one of the greatest at what you do, you'll be doomed to a life of increasing poverty: food derived from vegetable oils and chemically bleached wheat, apartments of grey laminate flooring and concrete, crime, people who derive their actions from social media, a 60 minute commute---as the real world: nature, people who are present, quality food, becomes increasingly out of reach.
> As a young person in the United States, the main concern is that if you aren't one of the greatest at what you do, you'll be doomed to a life of increasing poverty
In psychology there’s a concept called splitting, or dichotomous thinking, where a person only thinks of things in concepts of their extremes. Either the most extreme good outcome, or the most extreme bad outcome. They might see people or public figures as either amazing or evil. The Wikipedia page has a primer on it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology) But you don’t need a Wikipedia article or psychology concepts to realize that there are more outcomes than extreme success or increasing poverty.
I’m fascinated by how these concepts that were once relegated to psychology and therapy have started to become commonplace among young people on the internet. They’re not seen as failure modes in thinking, but rather an obvious conclusion from whatever they’ve been consuming so much of online.
The comment above is a prime example. Even the obsession over “food derived from vegetable oils and chemically bleached wheat” is a confusing conclusion for me, someone who has had no problem avoiding wheat products and eating healthy on a budget with even minimal effort. The food topic is particularly strange because it’s not that hard to learn basic cooking skills, buy cheap vegetable, and cook quick and easy meals. Yet I continue talking to young people who simultaneously fret about food quality while filling their diets with nothing but processed and fast foods, many of which are more expensive than cooking basic fast meals.
I don’t know what else to say, other than the above style of thinking is, in my experience, indicative of what happens when someone collects too much perspective from the internet and not enough from the real world. Given the context of this comment section, I can only recommend trying to reevaluate, disconnect from the internet a little more, and make an effort to reconnect with the real world
The binary perspective gives an excuse to give up.
The reasonable perspective does not. It demonstrates that though agency is limited it does exist.
Our life outcomes are connected to our actions. For many their circumstances make this an unpleasant thought, thus binary thinking protect their self-image. For some that's all they have left.
It is not a new outlook, soylent green—is people.
"the greatest at what you do" is by definition a zero sum framing that will lead 99.999% of participants to view their lives as a failure. It is literally madness to make this your goal.
The alternative is to choose to be very good at what you do, which has a good chance of success if you try hard at something you care about.
I feel like very good isn't enough as employers want the best candidates but not the average candidates, and if you're sort of in the middle then the so-so companies don't want you either because they think you'll leave.
Something about the increased social stratification of our times, which also has to do with increased transportation and communication.
Might also depend on your locale. Plumber in Germany might be better than SWE in Texas.
Hiring is not a zero sum game (growth of the company/economy through good hiring means more positions are created). I've hired software developers before and what I was looking for was somebody who commits code that works and is good quality. I don't care about their ranking on some imaginary programmer hierarchy. You probably don't want to work at a company where they do.
No, not a fan of Leetcode either, nor imaginary measures of social prestige.
We may not necessarily disagree with any of each other's points, but lack of mutual context and having different lived experience makes our words have different meaning.
I’m not from the US, but from my visits there and continuous reading of the living conditions in America this comment seems painfully true. As someone living in Israel I’m grateful we don’t live in those extremes.
Woah that’s bleak.
You don’t have to be faster than the bear, just faster than the other people the bear is chasing.
The bar is so low in corporate America you could trip on it.
Just try to be halfway competent, do something useful at work, read a book or two about your industry. You’re already way ahead.
Don’t fall for the hacker news bs.
Lots of millionaires out here that never had a successful startup.
I've tried to be as accurate as I perceive it, and the descriptions of the environment are accurate to the locale of most of the United States.
If the bar is that low, then the environment is sure to be like the first place I described.
> Lots of millionaires out here that never had a successful startup.
what do you mean by this?
He's quite religious:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/2011/07/geektheologian/
Many successful American tech founders and entrepreneurs have strong religious or spiritual beliefs — I believe it's part of the unique competitive advantage and edge in this industry
Many successful American tech founders and entrepreneurs don't have strong religious or spiritual beliefs. Both are true.
I think finding self-motivation in life is important, particularly for entrepreneurs, but there are many sources.
I've never thought the SV / San Fran scene was particularly religious. I'd have guessed religion was under-represented there compared to the rest of the US.
Spirituality doesn’t have to be religion and most certainly not an Abrahamic religion.
I wonder what the correlation / causation is on that versus having a supportive family and community.
That is, if you took someone who's an atheist, would making them religious (left as an exercise to the reader) make them measurably more successful? Or is it that people who already have supportive families tend to come from religious families, and tend to inherit their parents' religion?
As someone who isn't particularly religious, but grew up in a religious household, and as someone married to a very religious person (different religions), I believe it's all about outlook.
Religion tends to give you several quite positive beliefs about the world that aren't entirely logical. Things like karma, the golden rule, belief in a plan, etc.
Generally speaking I also believe that religious people are more willing to trust and forgive. These are all pretty positive things.
And finally I believe religious people have a higher sense of duty to others, but the better term is probably responsibilism.
What a nice companion piece to the article. KK is full of good vibes.
Really enjoyed reading this article, thank you!
Reminds me a lot of Ryan Norbauer's writings (https://ryan.norbauer.com/journal/the-outsider-option-why-i-...) on why he sold half his company and the satisfaction he got from being able to focus on doing the work that he considered fun.
I hope to engage my interests and hobbies in this way, super thankful that I have the opportunity to try.
I really appreciated hearing about the author’s journey and relating it to my own so far.
It was only about two years ago that I was obsessed with the idea of starting my own ambitious startup and “conquering the world”, but I’m now moreso considering the idea that I can have a significant positive impact on the world through building and contributing to software in a more “pro-bono” way.
As kk said in the article:
> “I think one of the least interesting reasons to be interested in something is money,”
There's a lot to love about this.
I particularly like feeling like you need permission to show optimism and enthusiasm about your work.
I also particularly like this bit:
“Greatness is overrated,” he said, and I perked up. “It’s a form of extremism, and it comes with extreme vices that I have no interest in. Steve Jobs was a jerk. Bob Dylan is a jerk.”
...but mostly out of a sense of confirmation bias. It's nice to know that there are smart, accomplished people out there who share my view that Steve Jobs and Bob Dylan are jerks.
One thing this helped crystallize for me, in my position as a nascent team leader, is the position that: "If something about your daily work sucks, let's talk about it. That's the first step to seeing if we can fix it."
This seems like - not a panacea? But a solid strategy to help uncover many problems in an organization.
Enjoyed the read. Thanks for posting.
"G-Chat with Charleton, in which he would interview Google executives while sitting with them in a two-person snuggie." What a sight that must have been haha
My first thought looking at those magnificent mellow glow photographs -- how does he manage to keep all that dust free.
Beautiful read.
Hired help. Does wonders for stress.
I love everything that Colossus puts out. Thanks for sharing this one!
This so much! great article and Kelly sounds like the type of person I would love to meet..
- having just endured time in a startup that was all about PMF, metrics and the 'growth flywheel', that pushed aside human intuition and creativity in place of 'winning'. It's indeed such a waste of humanity that the Reid hoffman's and Bezos's of the world can push inhuman cultural tropes of "winning" over our humanity. Just who is winning, the board, the VCs certainly not the person who loses his soul? On top of that, in today's world AI Slop and social media and lunatic linkedin influencers pushing those same memes hyped to eleven by AI tools, relentlessly on young founders and engineers via push notifications. day and night -what message do we deliver to ourselves?.
Amazon for all its technical chops and innovation and LinkedIn are anti-patterns in that regard. Do not follow.
Also, its too bad that silicon valley is so ageist that the lessons and wisdom of the older generation tend to get forgotten or cast aside-wish that we could at least take advantage of capitalism in our culture instead of it taking advantage of us
When we lose the pleasure of finding things out, going with our passions and intution and lose our love of creativity and invention, curiosity, patience and empathy we loose who we are as a human in society
A very cathartic read. I enjoyed this, and I really related to the author's anxieties.
Our economics has created a collective belief that if you aren't trying to be the best at playing the game, then you will be left behind in poverty. Mediocrity is shunned in Silicon Valley, and the rise of social media has only inflated that idea. We're increasingly checking our humanity at the door so we can be great, and sacrifice ourselves at the altar of capitalism. For what? So we can look ourselves in the mirror and believe we are one of the special chosen ones?
[flagged]