There is a theory called diffusion of innovation. The simple explanation is that there are 5 different cohorts of buyers. Early adopters, visionaries, pragmatists, conservatives and laggards. Early adopters and visionaries are risk takers, who will make bold moves to achieve order of magnitude results. This is called the early market, which represents 13% of the market. The pragmatists and conservatives make up the mainstream market which is about 70%.
In order to get into the mainstream market, you need solid adoption from the early market.
To choose a niche, you need to develop a solution that fits nicely into the buyers expectations for different types of market participants. There is the market alternative and product alternative. The market alternative is the solution that owns the highest proportion of market share. The product alternative is innovative tech that challenges superiority to the market alternative.
You need to introduce a solution that fits in between those participants to stand out.
To choose a solution, go to industry trade events and talk to people about high value problems that aren’t solved by current participants. That is the purpose of industry associations, to solve difficult problems.
Visionaries and early adopters love new vendors. They will champion you through their organization if your solution will help them meet their goals.
I’m not a big poster at all, but ran into this precise issue.
They analyze the video posts on instagram. If they detect the video has even a small amount of commercial value, they classify it as branded content and you need to pay for it to get promoted.
I am taking a course through a website called neetcode.io
It is a clone of leetcode, designed to help you build intuition in a programmatic way, to learn the top 75 - 150 coding questions, common in interviews.
Each lesson comes with detailed video explanation, with practice problems. The practice problems too come with video solutions.
If you go to the main site, you will see a link to the different courses they offer and also a roadmap. The roadmap organizes the algorithms in a hierarchy, from simple complex, to help you reduce your blindspots, as you build your intuition.
I'm nearly complete with the beginner course and will move to advanced soon. For me personally, it works quite well, because I need a human to explain things to me in detail in order to understand the complexity.
< I enjoy writing code. Let me get that out of the way first.
< I haven’t written a boilerplate handler by hand in months. I haven’t manually scaffolded a CLI in I don’t know how long. I don’t miss any of it.
Sounds like the author is confused or trying too hard to please the audience. I feel software engineering has higher expectation to move faster now, which makes it more difficult as a discipline.
I personally code data structures and algorithms for 1 - 2 hrs a day, because I enjoy it. I find it also helps keeps me sharp and prevents me from building too much cognitive debt with AI generated code.
I find most AI generated code is over engineered and needs a thorough review before being deployed into production. I feel you still have to do some of it yourself to maintain an edge. Or at least I do at my skill level.
Great article. I def experienced this new form of burnout. I’ve gotten use to working with AI systems to produce code, mainly the velocity of code production. It took me four months to develop an intuition of how to maintain a healthy pace and when to rest. I still feel that the pace is very fast, but my ability to consume code and update my mental model has improved. I try my best not to push past a certain point. I feel once the cognitive load is at capacity, you’re going to reduce quality in your outputs. So I’ve given myself a set threshold that I won’t cross. If things are slower, so be it. It’s not worth the added stress to have completed functioning code, with outsize cognitive debt.
Im fortunate to live in an area dense with traditional taxis and Ubers, no Waymo yet.
I rarely take taxis, the exception is when I have to haul my gear to the studio for a jam session. I always take a taxi, because it’s cheaper and faster than using an app to call an uber.
On 80% of the trips, I end up having a nice chat with the driver and learn something new about humanity or myself.
I really enjoy these interactions, but I feel for the drivers, it’s a very tough job where most taxi drivers have to scramble to find places to urinate or do so in an empty bottle between their legs. There is not much dignity in the job. I feel a negligible segment enjoy it as a reliable career.
I wonder what will happen to the drivers if a large representation of the 1 million+ daily trips are displaced by automation?
I'm speaking specifically to the example given by the author.
He was approached by an engineer that saw a critical flaw in the software that goes beyond simple "backlog prioritization".
The engineer "quietly" escalated his concerns by showing a thoughtful approach to fixing a global problem that goes beyond his assignment, that if left unsolved can cause problems for everyone.
Given the managers experience, he understood the engineers intrinsic motivation to do good (not biased in self promotion) and believed that the idea would speak for itself and gain the confidence of other engineers, which it did.
This approach is antithetical to what you described. The engineer did not advocate for himself or his idea, he identified a bigger problem that was far more important than his assignment. He brought the idea to leadership out of concern, to deal with conflicting priorities above him. He was not caught up in politics or transactional thinking.
The message the author is trying to convey, people with significant talent that have higher order values, are not concerned with labels such as "wanting to be a 10x engineer". They just focus on what they believe are the most important problems that they can solve that benefits everyone, not just themselves.
These people are truly rare and your argument that playing politics is necessary to promote ideas, proves how rare it is to come across these people.
You look at gaining recognition for good ideas as a zero sum game that requires self promotion.
If you develop a good original idea that solves a problem and it gets implemented, you have created positive impact without self promotion. If you're not concerned with public perception, then the discussion stops right here.
Someone can take credit for your idea to gain perception that it was their original idea. But in the end, someone who self promotes that can't come up with original ideas will eventually lose their believability factor and will be unable to promote themselves much further.
I really enjoyed reading this story. I personally believe in subscribing to self concordant goals and working altruistically to cultivate the good Society.
I also agree with the statement above. But what the author leaves out is that good work that speaks for itself can also create insecurity for those that are in an intense competition for recognition.
People’s reality is entirely subjective, where even well intentioned people may reject ideas that don’t contribute to their interpretation of reality.
In my personal experience, when I came up with and executed ideas that made substantial impact and outperformed others, I wasn’t given proper recognition, mostly due to others insecurity and politics to support a subjective reality that everyone can agree to. Particularly leadership who were non-technical sycophants that cared more to please their master than to do the right thing for the company or even themselves.
Humans are complicated social creatures where ethics and altruism often lose to filling personal voids.
I do believe in the concept of the wolf, someone who has reached self transcendence that doesn’t need to subscribe to a subjective shared reality and can achieve personal satisfaction through mastery by exercising their will to do something they believe is intrinsically meaningful.
Engagement is prioritized over quality on most mediums. I find user generated content on social media absolutely abhorrent.
Thank goodness for hacker news. I can read something, share my views and in some cases, my views may be based on some weak intuition and I learn from polite correctness.
I was wondering what preclinical models meant. It would be more accurate to call it animal models. I read roughly 3% - 5% of compounds move from preclinical cancer therapies to fda approval. That’s a tough success rate.
I’ve personally found meditation, exercise and healthy food intake are more effective for self regulation and coping with tough emotions over medication and supplements.
Each human being is unique, as is the recipe for sustained positive metal health.
I think it’s helpful to consider and experiment with different ideas and strategies.
I strongly disagree there is one single solution that can provide significant lift for a large population.
No problem! Happy it was helpful. I learned about equanimity last year in a book I read about the science of self actualization, how to reach your unique potential.
It’s great to be useful as living for your purpose is the best way to achieve life satisfaction. But it’s important to establish boundaries and avoid developing codependency and not to define yourself through the perception of your acts towards others. Having a skill that helps others gives you a sense of mastery. The fact that you have this skill and apply it in good faith should be enough to establish a good sense of self without feedback from others.
I love being an engineer and solving problems that I’m good at, which are problems too complex for most people to approach. But not everyone feels that way, some or most people don’t care or don’t understand the motivation, as they may have different motivations of their own. Learning to accept that and be confident without validation from others is very tough but possible, as you apply yourself consistently with focus and clarity, you gain a stronger sense of purpose. You are never fulfilled, but continue to pursue anyway, that is the trick I learned for myself. The trait is called equanimity and is more of a sustainable attitude vs a feeling, that is transactional. It’s easier as you get older and comes with maturity.
I believe the concept of public decency is entirely cultural and has less to do with courage.
Where I live, if someone is being loud in public, you usually keep to yourself. So long as they are not being overtly offensive or profane.
In other countries, like the Netherlands for example, people will have no problem telling you to be quiet or verbalize any violation of cultural norms. I believe it's like that in Germany and Scanda as well, from what I hear.
Your ideas are quite weak and you ask for overwhelming proof, but not willing to read any research. That’s just intellectually lazy.
Perhaps if you took some time to learn from the experts, those who create these systems and really understand what’s happening you would realize these limitations in AI are widely known.
It is for this reason I am grateful to be a gen xr. I was at the end of my 20s when social media blew up, so it wasn’t a meaningful part of my personal development. I cannot bring myself to look at IG and the hot mess it serves up daily. A hyper focused lens on the potential of human desperation and stupidity.
I don’t hate on the younger generation, I feel bad they grew up with this shit and try to be a positive influence.
I see people of legit talent from doctors, to chemists and musicians dedicate themselves to posting content. What people don’t understand is survivor bias. For every success story you read about, how many people are going in reverse and not experiencing social mobility (and get depressed from it).
Methadone is effective because it comes with lower respiratory fatigue.
If you have a nasty addiction, methadone is the gold standard for treatment. It's really all that's available to ween people down.
There are other medications for maintenance like buprenorphine and naltrexone. But you can't take those if you're in the throws of heavy addiction, you can die.