I say that the need to start your own thing is a bug not feature. It IS a hard life, with tons of risk, change, and uncertainty. My wife hates the instability of it all. I've missed or worked through many vacations, concerts, and other things over the years.
It's not even clear that it's a good deal, when you factor in opportunity costs, hours worked, and chances of success.
So, it if you don't have to do it, don't do it. You're not going to succeed unless you are just the kind of person who can't be happy going down another path.
It all sounds harsh, but it's actually a lot better than the risk/reward offered in many other fields: acting, writing, sports, etc.
This is just how professions with tournament-style payouts work, and you either buy in or you don't. Know thyself...it never pretended to be anything else.
I don't understand why so many people who care about greenhouse gases (and so love renewable energy sources) refuse to acknowledge that producing the equipment that generates "renewable" energy required massive energy investment (that came from fossil fuels).
And so there are two payback periods: one financial and the other environmental. This person extended their environmental payback period to achieve "abundance".
I have no problem with that, but the fact that it's considered "free" on the very same dimension that they originally sought to optimize--when it's clearly not free--baffles me.
I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of your comment.
I'd add, though, that the entire complex of metrics we use to define "productivity" were invented to quantify and guide the improvement of things that were a problem 100 years ago
Of course the second 50 years were worse than the first 50 years, because if the people working during the first 50 years accomplished anything, then all the easy wins were taken.
And the problems being solved changed. If your entire population has moved on from the problem of producing enough to meet material needs, then of course the work being done now will score poorly. You need to update your metrics as fast as your technology changes, and we just haven't done that.
Everything you've described above is a real added value, but it's not the kind of value that the old metrics were designed to measure.
Classic case of grading fish by their ability to climb trees.
This doesn't have to be true, though it is for many.
If you can find a version of your dreams that pays the rent and puts food on the table, you can still chase them.
Your financial metabolism does go up though, and the total universe of options shrinks. Ramen profitable doesn't mean actual ramen when you've got a spouse and kids.
I found that I've gotten much further in pursuing my dreams after having kids than before. Maybe it's just coincidence, but I feel a lot of the skills I had to learn to be the kind of parent I wanted to be translated almost 1 for 1 to improving my business outcomes.
Okay at the risk of being offensive, all the comments before mine are made by overly intellectual fools.
I'm not usually so insulting--but as a father of two, if my 3 year old and 1.5 year old could only read one book, it would have to be "Oh, the places you'll go" by Dr. Suess.
Sorry to stomp on Das Kapital and its ilk, but if you get only one book, I can't imagine a better first message to convey than the endless possibilities inherent in each of us.
The world is your oyster! Even if you're old and have wasted most of what you were given. Especially today, in some of the most amazing times that have ever existed (even if you didn't draw the long straw). Today is SO much better than most of history.
It sounds like you have read the question as "if a person could only read a single book in their whole life, what should it be?"
But I think the question actually meant: "for actual real life people here on HN, who have all probably read some books already, what extra book would you suggest reading?"
For us adults, there are probably books that would have more value than Dr Zeuss, excellent though it may be.
I agree kids should be read books that open their minds, that are written for the young mind.
For international audiences I would perhaps suggest books with a large number of translated languages as kids usually prefer to be read in a language they speak. One such "universal" book could be "The Little Prince" by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. For me it's magical at every age you read it.
At least in my native language (Finnish) Seuss is completely untranslated.
Hence in general, for this topic, "english books for adults" is maybe the safer categorization as I presume the intended audience is happy reading text in english, even though their kids don't speak english.
What’s amazing about Dr. Suess is how much creativity and fun he packs into a very simply written book. Most children’s books are so asinine. “Sally went to the farm. She saw a pig. Sally can drive a tractor. Etc. etc.” There is rarely a point to the book. Dr. Suess uses similarly simple language: “You can think about red. You can think about pink.” While simple, the underlying message is usually profound, and that makes it so much more interesting.
I wonder how much of the "managing processes" part could be delegated to software tools? How many of these processes could be automated, or "managed" by some sort of workflow software. Would it be possible with the right software product to essentially distribute the role of manager across the team/company?
The problem is that a lot of processes still leave a lot to interpretation, or many scenarios have grey areas on how to apply a process. The author mentions it a few sections later, you don't want the processes to have a ton of overhead, rather make it clear the expectations on how to interpret the situation or know they should come to the manager to provide direction.
Yes, but some processes ARE well defined, and you want to ensure the steps of it are all met correctly each time. This could be similar to the checklists airplane pilots use, or surgeons as extreme examples.
It's not even clear that it's a good deal, when you factor in opportunity costs, hours worked, and chances of success.
So, it if you don't have to do it, don't do it. You're not going to succeed unless you are just the kind of person who can't be happy going down another path.
It all sounds harsh, but it's actually a lot better than the risk/reward offered in many other fields: acting, writing, sports, etc.
This is just how professions with tournament-style payouts work, and you either buy in or you don't. Know thyself...it never pretended to be anything else.