The author assumes that because he doesn't know what he's doing, other people also don't.
I disagree. Sometimes people can know exactly what they're doing, and be fairly confident about the possible consequences.
I made a viral hit similar to the author's YT instant, and I very much did not know what I was doing. Then I did it again with different code, without leveraging the existing user base, just to see if it was all luck. It wasn't. I think a better argument would be that "sometimes successful projects are successful by accident", but that would make a terrible post title.
I agree with you completely, but I do think the biggest thing holding people back is fear, either that they won't do the right thing or they will fail.
As I told my kids tonight, be do-ers, not spectators.
Then I did it again with different code, without leveraging the existing user base, just to see if it was all luck.
Did you post it under a different name and account that none of your friends or contacts knew about? Just curious how you were able to be sure none of the existing user base or any of the notoriety you gained from the first hit contributed to the second.
Is it just me or is this perhaps taking the story of YouTube Instant a bit far?
I mean ya, I guess it got some press and got him a job offer, but it's not like he invented cold fusion or something. It was a cute idea. Can we really draw any kind of real conclusions from it?
Seems like that type of success, of a cute meme taking off is actually rather common, it is the longer term, build a sustainable company, king of success that is much more difficult.
He's excited about how successful he can be when applying himself to an idea for a few hours.
Scale it to 10,000 hours (Gladwell's Rule for success).
And that to >100,000 hours (lifetime devotion to an idea by the hyper-successful).
The importance of learning enough to recognize an opportunity, searching for it, finding it, then tenaciously applying oneself to it for decades, is something not taught in schools (at least not well) - most have to figure it out or fall into it.
"PS. Hate the font formatting, ugh."
Guess you meant the formatting on feross.org?
At first I also thought 'ugh', but as UI it is great because it is very readable.
I'm surprised no one's brought up the counterexample of Steve Jobs. He turned Apple from an unknown garage startup to one of the industry's most powerful players in just a few short years.
When Jobs was ousted, Apple went to the dumpster. When he returned, Apple once again rose to great success. Jobs was directly responsible for enough wildly successful products to make probably any other company or inventor in history green with envy.
It would be silly to claim that Apple's success is due to blind luck. Jobs' relationship with Apple and Apple's products appears causal and has been repeated in different market environments with vastly different product lines, which flatly contradicts the idea that _all_ successful people wing it and succeed based on luck.
Sure, some people succeed on accident. Some people succeed because they have real talent and just happen to get publicity at the right time. But some people succeed on purpose.
Your claim that most people who hit success dont have product vision may be true. Even though this might not be quantifiable, I get a similar idea from what I read. But I definitely think that it is not as uncommon as you think among Fortune 500 companies. I would think Bill gates( controversies/ethical questions apart) had a great vision. The reason why I say this is, I could say cancel a trip to Bahamas hoping to build something and see if I make it big. However, I would probably not drop out of a prestigious school to build something unless I am dead sure it will be a success. Obviously I am talking about Bill here.
The grammar of this headline really bugs me. The author correctly remembers that "None of us" is singular, but then spoils it by throwing in the plural "we're".
The correct version would, I think, be "None of us knows what he's doing", although both the feminists and the languagelog folks would complain about that.
Are you sure about “none” being singular in that context? I agree that the title is inconsistent, but I'd have written “None of us know what we're doing” (if I couldn't just pick some other phrasing).
gcide defines “none” as “No one; not one; not anything; – frequently used also partitively, or as a plural, not any.” and also offers “None of their productions are extant. –Blair”, both purportedly from 1913 Webster. So it seems that the pronoun can be interpreted in either number as needed.
“USAGE It is sometimes held that none can take only a singular verb, never a plural verb: : none of them is coming tonight, rather than : none of them are coming tonight. There is little justification, historical or grammatical, for this view. None is descended from Old English nān, meaning ‘not one,’ and has been used for around a thousand years with both a singular and a plural verb, depending on the context and the emphasis needed.”
You’re right though that it’s weird to mix both singular and plural verbs for the same subject.
[+] [-] goo|15 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_bias
The author assumes that because he doesn't know what he's doing, other people also don't.
I disagree. Sometimes people can know exactly what they're doing, and be fairly confident about the possible consequences.
I made a viral hit similar to the author's YT instant, and I very much did not know what I was doing. Then I did it again with different code, without leveraging the existing user base, just to see if it was all luck. It wasn't. I think a better argument would be that "sometimes successful projects are successful by accident", but that would make a terrible post title.
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|15 years ago|reply
As I told my kids tonight, be do-ers, not spectators.
[+] [-] jeromec|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vannevar|15 years ago|reply
Did you post it under a different name and account that none of your friends or contacts knew about? Just curious how you were able to be sure none of the existing user base or any of the notoriety you gained from the first hit contributed to the second.
[+] [-] ctdonath|15 years ago|reply
Hence this exchange a few days back: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2556295
[+] [-] geekzgalore|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swanson|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicpottier|15 years ago|reply
I mean ya, I guess it got some press and got him a job offer, but it's not like he invented cold fusion or something. It was a cute idea. Can we really draw any kind of real conclusions from it?
Seems like that type of success, of a cute meme taking off is actually rather common, it is the longer term, build a sustainable company, king of success that is much more difficult.
PS. Hate the font formatting, ugh.
[+] [-] ctdonath|15 years ago|reply
Scale it to 10,000 hours (Gladwell's Rule for success).
And that to >100,000 hours (lifetime devotion to an idea by the hyper-successful).
The importance of learning enough to recognize an opportunity, searching for it, finding it, then tenaciously applying oneself to it for decades, is something not taught in schools (at least not well) - most have to figure it out or fall into it.
[+] [-] tintin|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spiffytech|15 years ago|reply
When Jobs was ousted, Apple went to the dumpster. When he returned, Apple once again rose to great success. Jobs was directly responsible for enough wildly successful products to make probably any other company or inventor in history green with envy.
It would be silly to claim that Apple's success is due to blind luck. Jobs' relationship with Apple and Apple's products appears causal and has been repeated in different market environments with vastly different product lines, which flatly contradicts the idea that _all_ successful people wing it and succeed based on luck.
Sure, some people succeed on accident. Some people succeed because they have real talent and just happen to get publicity at the right time. But some people succeed on purpose.
[+] [-] thewisedude|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FeelsGoodMan69|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kakashi_|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tintin|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taphangum|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hugh3|15 years ago|reply
The correct version would, I think, be "None of us knows what he's doing", although both the feminists and the languagelog folks would complain about that.
[+] [-] premchai21|15 years ago|reply
gcide defines “none” as “No one; not one; not anything; – frequently used also partitively, or as a plural, not any.” and also offers “None of their productions are extant. –Blair”, both purportedly from 1913 Webster. So it seems that the pronoun can be interpreted in either number as needed.
[+] [-] jacobolus|15 years ago|reply
“USAGE It is sometimes held that none can take only a singular verb, never a plural verb: : none of them is coming tonight, rather than : none of them are coming tonight. There is little justification, historical or grammatical, for this view. None is descended from Old English nān, meaning ‘not one,’ and has been used for around a thousand years with both a singular and a plural verb, depending on the context and the emphasis needed.”
You’re right though that it’s weird to mix both singular and plural verbs for the same subject.
[+] [-] Johngibb|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomjen3|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] arapidhs|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Helianthus|15 years ago|reply
No one knows what they're doing. They only have the appearance by doing the sensible thing and doing the best they can.
The result is that in reality a lot of people know what they're doing; but they're still resting on that cardinal assumption:
whatever you're doing, it could fall to pieces. Even the most egotistical hacker, in his/her private moments, acknowledges the chaos of the universe.
[+] [-] aqrashik|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]