The Grugbrained CEO
sam-rodriques.comThis is a genuine question, not trying to yuck someone's yum. I don't understand this style of writing. I can't really relate to the humor. Can someone explain the laugh people get from this?
It both teaches ppl who don't know yet, and "weirds"[1] things for people who already know, by framing it in a "dressed down" way.
[1]: "weird" in the sense that it turns it upside down, to make the familiar unfamiliar and give new perspective. As described better in this article: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2016/09/22/speak-weirdness-to-tru...
I totally understand not getting why it's valuable - I'm not 100% on board either. But you're asking why it's funny to talk like a caveman? You might as well ask why farts are funny.
Maybe this one's execution isn't great, and maybe the joke doesn't work at this length - but the origin of the humor? Not to be insulting, but that's akin to a Lieutenant Commander Data question...
Thanks I guess I was just wondering if something went over my head, but sounds like not really.
The original is great. It was a stylistic choice which drove the point home that the simple, dumb, caveman part of your brain can be wise.
It was entertainingly novel the first time I saw it, but every copycat since then just feels like desperate bandwagoning.
Is not for laugh, is for stories by fire.
It started with https://grugbrain.dev/ but I think its useful because it dispenses with any possibility of pretension and signals 'this is simple advice about the fundamentals'. The limited vocab means no jargon bullshit. I find some of it really insightful. It speaks to the truth that beneath all the layers we are just hominids who have accidentally given ourselves great powers, and day to day a lot of what we do can be explained in simple terms and there is value in admitting that.
I'm kind of with you. I like oddball narration, but only if it's funny or entertaining. This is neither, I'm afraid.
I'm not sure what I'm missing.
Smart people pretending they're dumb. Juxtaposition is funny. Explaining jokes makes them less funny. Is fine.
Yeah, I dunno. This seems to have really missed the mark.
I do think the original[1] is worth a read. Even if I didn't like the style, I can appreciate the message: complexity is a cost, spend your complexity budget on things that matter, take the 80/20 Pareto win, no silver bullet, Chesterton's fence, etc. Importantly, the original is ever so slightly self-deprecating in a way that the intended audience can appreciate.
Compare this quote from the OP.
> Even when new grug shout loudly, important not to give new grug too much shiny rock. Why? First: make sure new grug really want to join tribe, make tribe strong.
Those who have read enough startup executive "thought leadership" probably recognize this idea: don't hire people who care about competitive compensation - those who work for passion will accept less. For the record, I personally think this idea is inherently toxic and exploitative - but let's put that aside for a moment. Even if one were to accept that idea as valid, this framing comes off as infantilizing. The same tone that was at least arguably acceptable for self-deprecation is entirely inappropriate for deprecating others.
I can only imagine this guy's employees are going to have a bad time.
Agree, the original works because it's framing it in a way that "I am a simple man, and I appreciate simpler ways and tools to deliver my stuff". It also has the essence of, "I once was there too, and I understand why you might make the same mistake, but think about what I'm saying".
This article, past the similar language, has very much a vibe of "this is the way to do it, trust in yourself, don't listen to haters, don't hire HR". Theres 0 mention of listening to customers or your team; the assumption is your instincts and existing skills are definitely good enough and you don't need to learn anything more?!
In my limited experience people who don't care about compensation also don't care about shipping what's asked of them. They'll build their own toys, organise committees and various initiatives.
I'd take a freelancer / mercenary who wants to get stuff done, invoice me and afford their own house - over someone from /r/anti-work
I mean, people from that particular sub, in spite of its name and its one rather unfortunate representative, generally seem to care about nothing but compensation, including the idea that one might have to offer talent to justify it.
I think the point (in the article, at least, and maybe I’m losing something in the way it’s been written) is that a freelancer who offers to do the work for a justifiable/earned amount is better than hiring the guy who wants a VP/C/staff/whatever title and thinks their salary (and their equity) is important as a matter of prestige and because they showed up, rather than output.
Hard to read. The writing style detracts from the message. I guess the takeaway of the article is that "Lean Startup" is the way to run a company?
First rule: make sure lawyer good. How know lawyer good? Just like dev, must see lawyer practice dark magick to judge. If dark magick summon complexity demon spirit for simple problem, give grug headache, no good.