Tech Specs of a Paper Book:
Readable with any form of light
Very high contrast display
Requires no battery power
Depending on model, lasts anywhere from five to five thousand years or more
Immersive and non-distracting user interface
Offers a spatial layout for immediate access to random information
Conforms to the standardized “page number” spec for easy reference
Supports direct interaction via pen or highlighter
DRM-free for easy lending and resale
Standards-based system not controlled by any single corporation or entity
Crash-proof and immune to viruses (though vulnerable to some worms)
Easy to learn user-interface consistent across most manufacturers
Supports very large number of colors and also black and white images
Compatible with a wide variety of note taking systems
Technology that is new is not inherently better. Technology that is old and still widely used has by definition survived a healthy Darwinian process, to the benefit of all.
Secondary Technologies and “Why Now?”
After spending a good amount of time in VC, its only natural that you’ll hear the same idea pitched again years later. Or, in its extreme, you’ll hear an idea pitched in a market that is littered with the cracked hulls of failed startups in the past. When this happens, the skeptical mind asks “Why Now?” Why will this work today when so many others have failed in the past?
Sometimes the answer is as simple as “We are better.” Team matters… at the earliest stage of investing I’d argue it matters above all else. And so as an investor you have to decide whether you think this is the team to crack the code in a historically difficult market.
But sometimes, you can come up with an answer to “Why Now?” that’s far more rational and intellectually satisfying. In one of my favorite startup talks ever, Jawad Karim (the third co-founder of YouTube that people usually forget to include in crediting YouTube’s genesis story) explains the “Why Now?” of YouTube quite rationally. He uses an argument around secondary technology and how they were the necessary foundation for YouTube’s success where previously so many other companies had failed. The talk is long, so I’ve cued it up in YouTube directly to the part where he explains “Why Now?” and secondary technologies. If you have more time, I *highly* recommend you watch the whole video because it contains countless gems of internet lore and nostalgia, along with a good analysis of the commonalities of hypergrowth companies.
Also, Liz Gannes did a tl;dr of the video back in 2006, which is a nice summary… though her link to the video in her article is broken so use mine instead.
This talk is 8 years old so I consider this my #tbt for the day even if I wasn’t there.
Paraphrased from Ajax Penumbra 1969.
I strive to build this habit regularly. It’s a real challenge, one well worth enduring.
A quote from an NYT article on Apple Pay.
"Respect and Honor…" I will remember that phrase for a long time. It’s a death knell.
Q: So, unrelated question, but I’m just curious—- What was your reaction to THE SOCIAL NETWORK movie?
A:The zero-sum world it portrayed has nothing in common with the Silicon Valley I know, but I suspect it’s a pretty accurate portrayal of the dysfunctional relationships that dominate Hollywood.
from Peter Thiel’s AMA on Reddit.
That’s the single most unintuitive thing about startups: they are almost never zero-sum. Which means you have to stop thinking about competition and instead focus internally on your own strengths and weaknesses. It’s unlike nearly all games, simulations, and learning lessons we all play growing up.
"When Are We Gonna Have To Use This?"
Upworthy has a beautiful video featuring an algebra class working together to on a sticky math question. It’s inspiring to watch; it features the best aspects of problem solving and challenging yourself. My favorite part is the teacher’s refutation to the question: “When am I ever going to use this?”
Q: Why do you do this exercise with your students?
"Every year I get the question in class, ‘When are we gonna have to use this?’ And my answer to that question is, ‘You’re not.’ That’s not the point. By doing math, we are carving neural pathways that otherwise wouldn’t have been there. Grappling with problems like this makes us better problem solvers, and by extension, better human beings.”
This response reminded me one of my favorite blogs post of the past few years, written by my friend Ben Stein. He wrote a refutation to Jeff Atwood plea to stop encouraging everyone to become programmers.
Jeff’s point was: very few people who learn to program become great programmers, and why does the world need more mediocre programmers? Just like not everyone needs to learn to be a plumber, not everyone needs to learn to program.
Ben’s response was terrific. It’s all great, but the money paragraph is:
Do I want my son to become a computer programmer? I don’t care. Up to him. Do I want him to understand how to think critically and logically and in a structured & methodical way when approaching problems? Absolutely. And computer programming teaches these skills better than anything else I’ve ever done.
Similarly, I recently finished a Coursera course on Cryptography. Outside of this class, I will never again implement a crypto cipher, or even use crypto library code in an app I write. No one will ever rely on me to handle their encryption/decryption matters. Like plumbing, it’s nearly always cleanly abstracted away from me. But it was so worth my time because of the way in which it challenged me an expanded my thinking. Like after reading a good book, it changed the way I think about a set of problems, and by extension, makes me a better human being.