“OK, but there are two rules…”(andyswan.com)
andyswan.com
“OK, but there are two rules…”
http://andyswan.com/blog/2011/01/05/two-rules/
74 comments
I appreciate the message, but am I the only one for whom the "fail fast" mantra is becoming grating? It seems like it was originally a good idea: if your startup is dead, let it die. Don't cling to a failed idea. Now, however, it's almost used instead of a plan, or as an excuse not to carefully consider your options. It seems as if it appeals to our innate laziness: "Take a shot. If you miss, oh well, better luck next time." There's no hunkering down, no in-the-heat-of-the-crucible, just give up and try something else. It feels like a truism packaged for the Twitter generation.
No, I agree. The "Ready, Fire, Aim" [1] approach is often taken to extremes. I see people do it with both their business plan and marketing approach.
But, I think the "Be relentless, never give up!" approach is becoming just as bad. A bad idea is a bad idea and you have to know when to move on or pivot big.
One is poor planning. The other is myopia. Both should be avoided.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Ready-Fire-Aim-Million-Agora/dp/047018...
But, I think the "Be relentless, never give up!" approach is becoming just as bad. A bad idea is a bad idea and you have to know when to move on or pivot big.
One is poor planning. The other is myopia. Both should be avoided.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Ready-Fire-Aim-Million-Agora/dp/047018...
Fail fast was just a side benefit. The point I was trying to make was to force yourself into creative and innovative solutions.
No, and I think your point was valid. I wasn't taking issue with your article, but I always twitch a little bit when I see someone saying how great it is to "fail fast".
Agreed. While the "fail-fast/fail-often" method does work, that doesn't mean the older model of carefully planning and considering your market is bad or ineffective. I mean look at Apple. Every product they've got right now has had years of very careful thought given to industrial design, user-interface, and marketing. Apple doesn't release a product unless they're at least 90% certain it can capture the market.
Apple also isn't looking to get bought out by Google for $60M. They're in it for the long haul, and they're looking to be big players. Most of the small startups I see these days, unfortunately including YC startups, seem to be launching with the idea of doing one cool thing, having no idea how to make money in so doing, and hoping to get bought out in a talent acquisition by Google or Facebook before they run out of money. In many cases, it seems to be less about entrepreneurship and more about putting together a really cool portfolio so you'll get a massive signing bonus when you get hired. Now, that's certainly a legitimate way to make money, and it makes sense for the angels and founders participating in YC and the like. But it's not entrepreneurship.
How many of the angel-backed startups these days are really looking to be long-term players? How many are looking to IPO in 10 years, vs get acquired in 2-3? How many founders envision themselves as the CEO of their company in 20 years? The fail fast mentality seems, on the surface, to be a reflection on an underlying current in the founder mindset: that entrepreneurship is a way to make enough money that you won't have to get a "real job". Just slug it out fo a few years, then become an angel yourself.
How many of the angel-backed startups these days are really looking to be long-term players? How many are looking to IPO in 10 years, vs get acquired in 2-3? How many founders envision themselves as the CEO of their company in 20 years? The fail fast mentality seems, on the surface, to be a reflection on an underlying current in the founder mindset: that entrepreneurship is a way to make enough money that you won't have to get a "real job". Just slug it out fo a few years, then become an angel yourself.
Paul Graham even seems to advocate the 2-3 years instead of 20.
From http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html
"Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast."
It's a motivation for a startup. Solve the "money problem" early in life, and do more important things later.
From http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html
"Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast."
It's a motivation for a startup. Solve the "money problem" early in life, and do more important things later.
I had that essay in mind when I wrote that comment. I agree with Paul, to an extent. It certainly does make economic sense both for individual founders, and for angels, to view entrepreneurship as a ~3 year endeavour, with the exit strategy being acquisition or bust. I don't, however, think it's ideal for the market as a whole. Google is only around because Yahoo refused to give Larry and Sergey $1M for it, so they decided to see what they could make of the endeavour. Yet Google's impact on the tech world and marketplace has been staggering. What would have happened if eBay, Google, Paypal, Amazon, and Youtube had all sold to Microsoft?
I don't have a problem with people launching websites with the intention of selling them in a couple years, but I do dislike the notion that that is what constitutes successful entrepreneurship. The tech world needs its Googles and Facebooks, which means we need entrepreneurs with vision who are willing to stick with it for the long haul.
I don't have a problem with people launching websites with the intention of selling them in a couple years, but I do dislike the notion that that is what constitutes successful entrepreneurship. The tech world needs its Googles and Facebooks, which means we need entrepreneurs with vision who are willing to stick with it for the long haul.
On the other hand (and without disagreeing), there are very few technology companies who have been around for 20 years and still produce exciting, relevant products. Perhaps short-lived enterprise also has benefits to the world as a whole?
Iterate Quickly
Also known as “kill ideas fast”, this advice is saying that your idea is probably not worth the pixels it’s displayed on. Ideas are a dime a dozen, execution matters. You’d be better off with a dumb idea in a large, expanding market!
Trust Your Guts
Also known as resilience or tenacity: when everyone else tells you to give up, when there is no hope in sight, what separates the successsful entrepreneur from the wanna-be: perseverance. Don’t give up.
Here’s my take on the contradiction: both your guts and everyone else are right — partially. It takes a very smart person (you) to figure out the gem that your guts detect and remove the junk that everyone else sees.
(source http://blog.fairsoftware.net/2009/12/18/startup-advice-contr...)
Also known as “kill ideas fast”, this advice is saying that your idea is probably not worth the pixels it’s displayed on. Ideas are a dime a dozen, execution matters. You’d be better off with a dumb idea in a large, expanding market!
Trust Your Guts
Also known as resilience or tenacity: when everyone else tells you to give up, when there is no hope in sight, what separates the successsful entrepreneur from the wanna-be: perseverance. Don’t give up.
Here’s my take on the contradiction: both your guts and everyone else are right — partially. It takes a very smart person (you) to figure out the gem that your guts detect and remove the junk that everyone else sees.
(source http://blog.fairsoftware.net/2009/12/18/startup-advice-contr...)
"It seems like it was originally a good idea: if your startup is dead, let it die."
I never saw it that way, or at least at that scale. I see it as a way to move fast by validating assumptions with evidence and being unemotional about sunk costs. Rather than spending many hours of meetings and design sessions and approvals to try a feature or change, just do it, measure it, and if it's not working, kill it. If it is working, keep it, and nurture it. If you just spent 3 months on an idea that is getting no traction, don't spend another 3 months trying to fix it when you've got other promising things in the pipeline.
I never saw it that way, or at least at that scale. I see it as a way to move fast by validating assumptions with evidence and being unemotional about sunk costs. Rather than spending many hours of meetings and design sessions and approvals to try a feature or change, just do it, measure it, and if it's not working, kill it. If it is working, keep it, and nurture it. If you just spent 3 months on an idea that is getting no traction, don't spend another 3 months trying to fix it when you've got other promising things in the pipeline.
It's amazing how many things can become successful if you just stick it out and work at it. No?
Exactly. The "fail fast" notion is anathemic to most worthwhile pursuits, from school to skill acquisition to sports... I'm not sure why it's suddenly considered a virtue in the startup world.
It depends on what extreme you take it to. For the classic sports example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45mMioJ5szc
Fail Fast can also be seen as: Perform, get feedback, perform slightly better, get more feedback, iterate until perfect.
Fail Fast can also be seen as: Perform, get feedback, perform slightly better, get more feedback, iterate until perfect.
But we already have that. It's called practicing.
Mark Rosewater, the lead developer of the card game Magic:The Gathering constantly talks about how restriction breeds creativity.
"The explanation he gives is simple: when someone is building a house, the more tools they have, the better off they are. But when someone is looking for something, the more space they have to explore, the worse off they are"
from:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/3ir/narrow_your_answer_space/
and the original article (on Magic:The Gathering design, but with useful information - scroll down to the "Design Tool #1: Restrictions" header where he discusses this point):
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/dai...
"The explanation he gives is simple: when someone is building a house, the more tools they have, the better off they are. But when someone is looking for something, the more space they have to explore, the worse off they are"
from:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/3ir/narrow_your_answer_space/
and the original article (on Magic:The Gathering design, but with useful information - scroll down to the "Design Tool #1: Restrictions" header where he discusses this point):
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/dai...
I remember taking an English class my freshman year of college. We had to write a research paper, and the professor proposed that we make a rule that we can't use the internet. The class shot it down hard. While not a policy, he recommended that we give it a shot if we are up to it. I gave it a shot and it was actually quite a good experience. Libraries are not obsolete, and I was very able to write about new and contemporary issues. The restrictions made it a better experience for me.
Though that was for school, where the point is often to create things that are neither novel nor profitable.
Though that was for school, where the point is often to create things that are neither novel nor profitable.
Another great parallel is from photography:
Many film cameras used to be sold with only a fixed 50mm or a 35mm lens. The restriction forced people to think about what was in or outside the field of vision. Today's cameras that have 10x zooms do not force the same consideration, and I suggest that amateur photography has suffered as a result.
A friend of mine is a house-painter by trade, and has set himself the restriction to never use a brush when he paints a canvas. This forces him to consider what he really wants and how he can get there, instead of simply smearing paint around the canvas until he gets bored.
We have too many choices these days. Getting rid of a few can make results much more deliberate.
Many film cameras used to be sold with only a fixed 50mm or a 35mm lens. The restriction forced people to think about what was in or outside the field of vision. Today's cameras that have 10x zooms do not force the same consideration, and I suggest that amateur photography has suffered as a result.
A friend of mine is a house-painter by trade, and has set himself the restriction to never use a brush when he paints a canvas. This forces him to consider what he really wants and how he can get there, instead of simply smearing paint around the canvas until he gets bored.
We have too many choices these days. Getting rid of a few can make results much more deliberate.
Zoom lenses have been the predominant kit lens for cameras for the better part of twenty years. I think the migration to digital (where the cost of shooting is ridiculously low) has had a much greater impact on the worsening of amateur photography.
That coupled with the ubiquity of sharing pictures on the internet has created a perfect storm of shittiness.
Professional photographers love to lament about this, and while much of it is elitist posturing; there is truth to it (I say that as someone who splits my time about 50/50 as a professional photographer).
That coupled with the ubiquity of sharing pictures on the internet has created a perfect storm of shittiness.
Professional photographers love to lament about this, and while much of it is elitist posturing; there is truth to it (I say that as someone who splits my time about 50/50 as a professional photographer).
Digital cameras didn't make amateurs worse, they just increased the amount of amateurs. And I'm sure it increased the amount of good photographers too, so I'm not sure what the complaint is here.
If old cameras took better pictures, then I implore professional photographers to use them.
If old cameras took better pictures, then I implore professional photographers to use them.
The complaint was that the parent poster was postulating that amateurs have gotten worse recently, and that that could be explained by the increased usage of zoom lenses.
If I accept that the first statement is true (that amateurs have gotten worse), I disagree on the cause (that it's because of zoom lenses, as zoom lenses have been the norm on SLR's since the 80's).
I don't know objectively if amateur photographers are better or worse. I know that nowadays I see a lot more bad pictures than I used to (and while there is also an increase in good pictures, it hasn't increased nearly as much as the bad ones have). I am postulating that this is more likely due to the proliferation of digital and the ease at which photos can be shared (most people's crappy photos would only get viewed by their family members over the holidays when they dug out the slide projector).
I'm don't think it matters if old cameras took better pictures (for the most part, they did; although the other benefits of digital tend to make up for it).
If I accept that the first statement is true (that amateurs have gotten worse), I disagree on the cause (that it's because of zoom lenses, as zoom lenses have been the norm on SLR's since the 80's).
I don't know objectively if amateur photographers are better or worse. I know that nowadays I see a lot more bad pictures than I used to (and while there is also an increase in good pictures, it hasn't increased nearly as much as the bad ones have). I am postulating that this is more likely due to the proliferation of digital and the ease at which photos can be shared (most people's crappy photos would only get viewed by their family members over the holidays when they dug out the slide projector).
I'm don't think it matters if old cameras took better pictures (for the most part, they did; although the other benefits of digital tend to make up for it).
I would be a far worse photographer than I am now if I did not have a digital camera. I do not have $5000 to blow on film and developer fees (or developing time, not to mention a lack of funds to blow on a darkroom setup) by experimentally learning about fstops or ISO settings, on a multi-day feedback loop, just for learning. I can afford batteries to take several thousand pictures, on a multi-second feedback loop, just for learning. My tools may be worse but I'm not aiming to be a pro.
This is a myth that needs to die.
Having started with a film SLR in the digital age, based on my personal experience I can say that it does not take $5000 of film or developer fees to learn f-stops or ISO settings on your camera, unless you have a spastic trigger finger. I learned the above, as well as the zone system, shutter speed, push/pull processing, metering, and night shooting using about 5-6 rolls of film. I did this on a camera I got for $50 off of eBay. Development time is about an hour (Take it to a lab! Why bring up darkroom costs if you wish to lower your costs?), so you can have feedback in the same day. The fundamentals don't take that long to learn.
Now, learning to color balance is levels harder, but that's something you have to do whether you're on film or digital.
I have since switched to a digital SLR for the reason that it's a pain to get film scanned. But if it wasn't for that, I'd keep on shooting film; my prints from film have been more gorgeous, with more dynamic range and detail, than images from my SLR. I also picked up an old TLR from eBay for $50 that lets me use 120 film. Digital cameras with that kind of resolution still costs $10,000 (e.g. Mamiya).
Finally, there's a certain joy one gets from crafting your print by hand in the darkroom, the sense of mystery as the print develops, that I now miss when I sit in front of my computer and click-click dodge-and-burn my images. Like you, I cannot justify the costs of setting up my own darkroom (although I believe a black-and-white darkroom is relatively inexpensive, depending on how good of a deal you can get on your enlarger, maybe $1000-$2000?), and even darkroom rental locations are fast disappearing. For that I feel a little sadness, like watching whales go extinct.
Having started with a film SLR in the digital age, based on my personal experience I can say that it does not take $5000 of film or developer fees to learn f-stops or ISO settings on your camera, unless you have a spastic trigger finger. I learned the above, as well as the zone system, shutter speed, push/pull processing, metering, and night shooting using about 5-6 rolls of film. I did this on a camera I got for $50 off of eBay. Development time is about an hour (Take it to a lab! Why bring up darkroom costs if you wish to lower your costs?), so you can have feedback in the same day. The fundamentals don't take that long to learn.
Now, learning to color balance is levels harder, but that's something you have to do whether you're on film or digital.
I have since switched to a digital SLR for the reason that it's a pain to get film scanned. But if it wasn't for that, I'd keep on shooting film; my prints from film have been more gorgeous, with more dynamic range and detail, than images from my SLR. I also picked up an old TLR from eBay for $50 that lets me use 120 film. Digital cameras with that kind of resolution still costs $10,000 (e.g. Mamiya).
Finally, there's a certain joy one gets from crafting your print by hand in the darkroom, the sense of mystery as the print develops, that I now miss when I sit in front of my computer and click-click dodge-and-burn my images. Like you, I cannot justify the costs of setting up my own darkroom (although I believe a black-and-white darkroom is relatively inexpensive, depending on how good of a deal you can get on your enlarger, maybe $1000-$2000?), and even darkroom rental locations are fast disappearing. For that I feel a little sadness, like watching whales go extinct.
I pulled a number out of my ass, but I was also accounting for my time. I was also referring not just to fstops but the entire process of learning to take good photos which takes more than 5 or 6 rolls of film, composition and such can take an unbounded amount of time to learn. I do not care enough about the "certain joy" of darkrooms to spend money on it. I am not and have no intention of being <font face="script>"A Photographer</font>.
Digital.
Digital.
Chill, buddy. If you simplified your original statement to the point where it is no longer true, responses to it that are off base can hardly be surprising. Say what you mean, mean what you say.
Did you notice that getting rid of the brush actually increases the choices and undermines your point? At least, I assume the purpose is to use other things to put paint on canvas, thus creating a choice where conventionally there is none.
I would argue the lowering cost of entry into photography is what is decreasing quality. Those willing to make the larger investment in past years are also more likely to improve their skills.
This is great
Mr. Swan misses the point here. The success of the new bourbon was not because random restrictions were applied (e.g. Open a pizza place with NO CHAIRS), but because a high standard was enforced.
I don't know....a "makers mark single barrel" would have had pretty high standards and a really "me too" feel.
I'll stick by my argument that self-imposed restrictions can really help people get innovative and avoid the me-too traps of entrepreneurship.
I'll stick by my argument that self-imposed restrictions can really help people get innovative and avoid the me-too traps of entrepreneurship.
I would agree with this. High standards result in great products, but not necessarily innovative products.
Restrictions can and do lead to restrictions. Think of all the limited resources in a computer 20 years ago and all the tricks played with memory and registers and bit-shifting and such to push the limits of what the hardware could do.
Restrictions can and do lead to restrictions. Think of all the limited resources in a computer 20 years ago and all the tricks played with memory and registers and bit-shifting and such to push the limits of what the hardware could do.
Think a bit harder - don't you know at least one pizza chain with no chairs? Perhaps one that excels at delivering value?
I took the tour at Makers Mark distillery a few months ago (highly recommended), and they told a mostly similar story about Makers 46 (named after the number of attempts it took to get it right), but spun it as Bill Samuels, Jr. desire to "leave his mark." Although it is fun to find business lessons in everything (especially bourbon), I came away with a slightly more concrete example in brand loyalty after being introduced at the distillery to Marker's Mark's Ambassador program. It is pretty interesting: essentially it allows you to place your name on a barrel and recieve updates about its progress. When its finally ready, you have now earned the right to purchase your "own" bottle.
From what I understand the "46" is a shout-out to their supplier, because it is the product number of the wood staves used in the finishing process....
I learned this concept from George Lucas when I was a child.
Star Wars Budget: $13M
Return of the Jedi Budget: $32M
I'm not joking when I say that juxtaposition influenced the way I think about life.
Now the idea almost seems like a trivial commonplace to me. Everyone from John Paul Sartre to David Heinemeier Hansson has written about it.
Star Wars Budget: $13M
Return of the Jedi Budget: $32M
I'm not joking when I say that juxtaposition influenced the way I think about life.
Now the idea almost seems like a trivial commonplace to me. Everyone from John Paul Sartre to David Heinemeier Hansson has written about it.
But the best film of the trilogy was Empire Strikes Back - at $25M.
No, $18M according to imdb.
Are those figures adjusted for inflation?
I doubt that 6 years (1977 - 1983) is long enough for inflation to have altered the ratio much.
Inflation during that time period was one of the highest on record for the US -- see ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt.
CPI June 1977: 60.7 $13 million
CPI June 1983: 99.5 $21.3 millionSometimes, the restrictions come at being underfunded, or with a lack of time, which takes less discipline to enforce than self-restriction.
"Restrictions breed creativity" is hardly a new concept, but one worth repeating.
the original sounds much better:
necessity is the mother of invention. There are plenty of restrictions already I think, due to necessity, whether it is time, money, skills, why be even harder on yourself.
necessity is the mother of invention. There are plenty of restrictions already I think, due to necessity, whether it is time, money, skills, why be even harder on yourself.
There are restrictions that foster creativity as well as those that inhibit it. The trouble is you don't know which is which until you actually try building something within them. Additionally, you only see the success stories where these constraints resulted in something special, you don't see the failures that would have been successes if only the creators were given a bit more intellectual freedom.
I'm struggling with this right now. When building web applications, there are some constraints that are interesting and useful ("the user should be able to do everything without logging in") that might result in great stuff being built, and others ("it has to use this particular technology stack or this particular algorithm") that are less obviously beneficial to the creative process.
I'm struggling with this right now. When building web applications, there are some constraints that are interesting and useful ("the user should be able to do everything without logging in") that might result in great stuff being built, and others ("it has to use this particular technology stack or this particular algorithm") that are less obviously beneficial to the creative process.
"Originality isn't easy, but it is simple. Just don't do stuff that's already been done."
[deleted]
And now I want bourbon.
Is 1:30 too early?
Is 1:30 too early?
Meh.
Be dismissive without rolling your eyes...
Ready? Go!
Be dismissive without rolling your eyes...
Ready? Go!
I would respond to your comment, but really, there's nothing worth responding to there..
Actually the runkeeper idea without any inputs sounds like a pretty interesting problem.
Jobs: Make it work with one button
I think it's worth mentioning that in this case, the restrictions weren't arbitrary. There was insight in the two rules- designed perhaps to stay true to Makers (the "best bourbon") and still create something truly innovate and distinct.
Arbitrary restrictions can also inspire creativity and create focus (timeboxing, learning to say no), but creating restrictions can be an opportunity to frame the problem in a purposeful way.
Arbitrary restrictions can also inspire creativity and create focus (timeboxing, learning to say no), but creating restrictions can be an opportunity to frame the problem in a purposeful way.
Enhancing creativity through artificial restriction is an old idea. The "Oulipo" movement in literature tried things like removing random letters from writing (try writing a story without using "e"), or transposing random words. When you put in restrictions like this, you get a much higher variance in outcome, with the bad being truly awful and gimmicky but the good occasionally being sublime.
It's not too hard to see why this works if you think about it as a mathematical optimization. You have a very bumpy fitness function in parameter space. When you apply arbitrary constraints on the parameters you are selecting a subspace to examine for local maxima of the fitness function. This is an easier problem to solve than the original global maximization problem.
Although you then have to solve two problems; optimizing the constraints, and then optimizing within the constraints.
If I applied the arbitrary constraint that x must be an odd multiple of pi, then I'm not going to get a very good answer to trying to maximise cos(x)...
If I applied the arbitrary constraint that x must be an odd multiple of pi, then I'm not going to get a very good answer to trying to maximise cos(x)...
The example you gave is a degenerate case that isn't really representative of the real world situation. Making x to be an odd multiple of pi in your example is an excessive constraint on the problem. Real world problems requiring creativity exist in highly multidimensional spaces and their fitness functions often exhibit fractal behavior.
For example, let P be the set of all English-language poems of N lines, where each line is a semantically and syntactically valid expression in English and N>0. P is an incredibly huge set. We want to find solutions of high aesthetic fitness on the set P. Applying a few arbitrary constraints reduces the size of the search space but has little effect on our ability to find solutions with high aesthetic fitness. For example, we could arbitrarily restrict our search to the space of English poems with N=14, 10 syllables per line, an alternating pattern of an unstressed and stressed syllables in each line (iambic pentameter), and a rhyme pattern a-b-a-b-c-d-c-d-e-f-e-f-g-g in the terminal words of each lines. We've now drastically reduced the size of the search space such that we are now searching only the space of valid Shakespearean sonnets. However, even with our arbitrary constraints in place, we're still solving a highly unconstrained optimization problem and the arbitrary constraints we applied don't prevent us from finding solutions of high fitness.
We could say that the bumpiness of the fitness function is fractal -- the shape of the fitness function on an arbitrary subspace resembles the shape of the fitness function taken over the whole space, providing that the subspace is itself "large" in some sense. The point is that there's nothing special about the arbitrary constraints we imposed. We could instead choose to work in the space where N=16, the number of words per line is between 4 and 7, the first four lines are all questions, and the last line is constructed in the form of a direct object followed by a subject and a verb and a repetition of the direct object (e.g. "Yoda, you seek Yoda"). There are still many aesthetic and unaesthetic solutions in this space, perhaps there are even some solutions with greater fitness than any of the 154 solutions that Shakespeare discovered with his set of arbitrary constraints.
For example, let P be the set of all English-language poems of N lines, where each line is a semantically and syntactically valid expression in English and N>0. P is an incredibly huge set. We want to find solutions of high aesthetic fitness on the set P. Applying a few arbitrary constraints reduces the size of the search space but has little effect on our ability to find solutions with high aesthetic fitness. For example, we could arbitrarily restrict our search to the space of English poems with N=14, 10 syllables per line, an alternating pattern of an unstressed and stressed syllables in each line (iambic pentameter), and a rhyme pattern a-b-a-b-c-d-c-d-e-f-e-f-g-g in the terminal words of each lines. We've now drastically reduced the size of the search space such that we are now searching only the space of valid Shakespearean sonnets. However, even with our arbitrary constraints in place, we're still solving a highly unconstrained optimization problem and the arbitrary constraints we applied don't prevent us from finding solutions of high fitness.
We could say that the bumpiness of the fitness function is fractal -- the shape of the fitness function on an arbitrary subspace resembles the shape of the fitness function taken over the whole space, providing that the subspace is itself "large" in some sense. The point is that there's nothing special about the arbitrary constraints we imposed. We could instead choose to work in the space where N=16, the number of words per line is between 4 and 7, the first four lines are all questions, and the last line is constructed in the form of a direct object followed by a subject and a verb and a repetition of the direct object (e.g. "Yoda, you seek Yoda"). There are still many aesthetic and unaesthetic solutions in this space, perhaps there are even some solutions with greater fitness than any of the 154 solutions that Shakespeare discovered with his set of arbitrary constraints.
Alcohol. It sells. Brand recognition helps as well.
Unfortunately the comment "Running a real estate website? OK... you’re not allowed to show the asking price or address of any home. Go." describes some of the most annoying real estate websites I've come across.
While restrictions can encourage innovation, sometimes they really do just get in the way.
While restrictions can encourage innovation, sometimes they really do just get in the way.
That was my reaction too! Every real estate ad in Puerto Rico does this; it's to make sure you're tethered to the broker, who is the only way you gain access to the market. Maddening.
(Well: I say "every", but it's changing even in Puerto Rico.)
(Well: I say "every", but it's changing even in Puerto Rico.)
FYI: Knob Creek just announced their "Single Barrel Reserve".
http://www.uncrate.com/men/culture/drinks/knob-creek-single-...
I eat at a no-tables-and-chairs pizza place sometimes: Sal's in Boston. Real popular with the Suffolk U kids. You order your pizza and to eat it, you stand at one of the high counters running alongside the plate-glass windows.
Design is the successive application of constraints until only a unique product is left.
- Donald Norman, The Design of Everyday Things
- Donald Norman, The Design of Everyday Things
I guess the analogy with mobile Apple products is obvious (which I presume is why this post is on HN at all), but in hindsight I just realized that I have been following a similar strategy in my personal life all along (never let myself play video games or really watch TV except movies).
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how not playing video games or watching TV is a creative constraint. I can see it helping with time management, but I don't see how it directly helps you improvise. Also, TV is in a golden age right now. If I had to pick, I'd take the quality episodic TV shows coming out of HBO, Showtime and the like over movies anyday.
> I don't see how [not playing video games or watching TV] directly helps you improvise
Let's just say it makes me less immersed in today's era when it comes to matters of visual taste/preference, which in turn lets me make creative choices that some people may find surprising (or at least that's what my self-serving bias tells me).
I do understand the importance of keeping up with trends though, but I restrict my trend-seeking to people who I personally perceive as trendy (and which tend not to be on TV).
Let's just say it makes me less immersed in today's era when it comes to matters of visual taste/preference, which in turn lets me make creative choices that some people may find surprising (or at least that's what my self-serving bias tells me).
I do understand the importance of keeping up with trends though, but I restrict my trend-seeking to people who I personally perceive as trendy (and which tend not to be on TV).
I can see that to a degree, though I think some video games (especially indie ones) could be inspiring as well. But I appreciate that we all have our chosen muses.
I think this is on HN, not because of Apple, but because many people here like creating new stuff. Advise on how to create something innovative is valuable here.
[deleted]