You only compete with one thing
world.hey.comBeautifully written!
The philosophy can be extended to life as well. Your focus should be on your problems and ambitions in life, not on anyone else's. You define happiness on your own measure, and nobody can take that away.
I've witnessed (and felt) so much suffering from comparison-ism.
I've not been on social networks for a long while, largely because I felt their use amplify my natural tendency to compare myself to my peers.
If you can let go and allow yourself to consider what it is you really want (which can be super hard / impossible while being bombarded with messages from other about their values), you can reach a place where you don't mind measuring poorly on other people's scales of success.
It is very empowering to be confident in what you like and want, and to start pursuing it. It does have its social costs, but so does following the pack.
I really appreciate your message, thanks for articulating my inner thoughts well.
I have been away from social media for similar reasons; I would feel empty after scrolling through Insta. Figuring out what I really want and sticking to it in this constantly judging society has been a difficult task, especially since my version of success is probably not as fancy as the "usual".
This is similar to a comment I made recently. Somehow the last decade of business media riled up by VC money has focused on disruption, us vs them, go big or go home, growth at all costs etc.
I firmly feel this does not make for a healthier society.
VCs have to swing for the fences and hit out of the ball park. Typically half of their investments tank. So the occasional big hits have to pay for all the failures too. Otherwise their investors will just take the safe option with mutual funds, bonds, treasuries, etc.
Over the past decade, a lot of these haven't been "hits" at all, except for an IPO bump. WeWork, Uber, Doordash....these have taken in investments on par with some nations' GDP, and are massively unprofitable.
VCs may need to swing for the fences but they're engendering market failure by concentrating so much capital and media hype into these boring sectors.
They could always try to get better at picking winners
Despite many generations of trying, nobody has figured out how to reliably pick the winners. I suspect that doing so is legitimately impossible.
Unless it’s a race to own a winner take all market position.
In which case it’s worth spending the money in the short term to win in the long term.
But 37 signals always likes to present a contrarian black and white “I’m right, they’re wrong” position, so we shall let them be right.
They exist, which is contrary to the truism often spouted "if you aren't growing you are dying".
I find their point of view refreshing, because it reminds me that a lot of the 'laws of business' are just conventions.
> Unless it’s a race to own a winner take all market position.
Different people are different, of course, but in my opinion any winner-takes-all kind of situation is one to be avoided at all costs.
100%. And when there is one, regulators should stop it.
Race to own a winner take all market is just a synonym for race to form an illegal monopoly.
The universal rule, for business and personal affairs: earn more than you spend.
However, in business the general consensus is you need to spend money to make money. That is why you have starting capital. With oodles of VC funds, it is tempting to spend without keeping the ROI in mind. Accurately forecasting revenue and achieving it are an enduring challenge.
The ROI goal is the IPO price. That's where founders and insiders get paid. Whatever happens after that is somebody else's problem.
It would be true if customer would be 100% loyal. Taxi businesses in my town have been profitable for years until uber-unprofitable companies decided to take their place. Put their logos in airports. now taxi businesses are dying. I have respect to 37signals and they are more successful than any of my endeavours, but in my opinion it's always about eating your own milking cow and building internally killers of your own product. Complete with your own product.
It's not the unprofit, it's the fact that Uber's app, where you knew the price up front, it wasn't renegotiated at the destination, you could pay safely on your phone, you knew where your driver was, etc etc was all a million miles ahead of the awful experience of taking a taxi before Uber.
My town supports this. Uber and Lyft are present here, but the taxi companies are more popular than they are. The reason is because the taxi companies provide their own apps that give you the benefits that Uber's does.
That's great, and IME Uber and Lyft's innovations have forced other taxi firms to up their game where it was happily languishing in the 1980s.
Yeah tell this to the guys at MosaicML. Spend less than you earn is a fine strategy but it definitely isn’t the only road to Rome.