That doesn't mean that such draconian cultures are unsuccessful, just the opposite. The problem is, success becomes very much dependent on the quality of the leader(s), e.g. compare Libya and China; the performance becomes very brittle.
The main paradox of humanity, of course, is why people continuously create such fear-driven, hero-worshiping hierarchies, although it causes great personal stress to them. Belief in a strong, super-genius, infallible leader that we can never equal and/or please, may be ingrained in our brains, be it religion or, as in this case, CEO worship.
My observation is the opposite. The incompetent use fear and anger. The competent don't need to resort to the lizard part of their brain to communicate with their subordinates.
Imagine if this guy worked at Apple. He'd be fired and blacklisted. Some companies just have better cultures than others. Sorry I just don't buy the whole "ubermen should piss on everyone else because they are better than everyone and any show of manners is a show of weakness!!" Ayn Rand-fest.
While I undestand the importance of good work and brevity and being challenged, I suggest you actually read about what its like working with characters like Steve Jobs. Phrases like "What the fuck is wrong with you, moron?" are casually tossed around. That's not executive bullshit cutting, that's petty personal and childish attacks.
As an example, I'm thinking of meetings where everyone speaks up to be heard whether or not they have something valuable to say. Often times, its warranted to simply say "Let's stay on-topic," or "Let's off-line that discussion." Peoples' feelings will be hurt by this, but its necessary to stay productive. Likewise, if someone has an uber-urgent task for me to accomplish that isn't really urgent, I'll tell politely but firmly tell them that I don't have the time and that they should put it in my back-log. This sometimes results in hurt feelings, but its necessary to keep focused.
Regardless, that's a digression from my main point, which is that I don't think the fear-based culture is always intentional. Your experiences don't reflect mine, which is fine, and I concede that incompetent may use fear and anger to keep people in line. I've simply not worked in those sorts of organizations before.
Competence is a necessary, but not sufficient, trait to reach the top. There are a great many people in the world more competent than Jeff Bezos. They do however, lack the cult of personality and thus are not at the top of their own totem poles.
The lack of personality cults in Microsoft and Facebook is the reason why they always receive bad press for not having "visionary leaders" or "creative energy". This is all code speak for the fact that employees do not fear the personalities of Zuckerberg and Gates (and Allen), so they have less respect for the company and thus believe it is not a place worth working for as they'd rather not "work under an equal". Simply put, Zuck and Gates did not cultivate their personality cults enough for the average employee to fear AND respect them as a superhuman CEO demigod. And they pay the price to this day by being on the receiving end of slightly veiled slander at their abilities and thus, their right to rule.
I wonder how many people realize this as they read about Steve Jobs, the tech CEO who should have been a politician.
So Jobs, rather than waste time trying to figure out what makes every Apple employee tick (which wasn't a practical option considering Apple's size), he instituted a culture of fear and awe. This is akin to him wearing the same black turtleneck every day because he didn't want to waste brain cycles figuring out what to wear.
That said, it turned out that way because I was stupid and naive and let myself get flung into the russian roulette of their blind allocation process. This put me on a team doing work for which I had no real relevant experience and working under a manager who promptly forgot I existed for 3 months.
I'd call my experience an outlier, and it all turned out well in the end when I fled the place for a better offer doing work far more relevant to my previous job experience, except that I keep running into others that had almost exactly the same thing happen to them.
Amidst the hooplah of Larry and Sergei's Montessori for overgrown gifted kids, there's something very rotten, elitist, and ineffective going on at the googleplex and the initial frustration in Steve's rant hinted to me that deep down he knows this too. Perhaps I'm wrong. But I had such high hopes for the place and they were utterly dashed on the rocks.
He wrote the original to pander to them, while bashing Amazon.
I'm not equating smart with narcissistic, just noting similar behavior with similar ways to mitigate damage vectors.
// no, I'm not still bitter about be written up for having too many (1 onsite, 3 offsite) secured backups.
Leaving parts out so they can provide input and fill in the gaps is a way of guiding them down the path -- you're essentially manufacturing buy-in.
A few years back, I found myself in a one-on-one saying: "you would think someone taking a job managing a hog farm would at least know what a hog is."
Though, that was about web-development.
A suitable allegory.
Lou Gerstner and Meg Whitman are two examples from the technology world. Both came into their jobs at IBM and eBay with zero tech experience, but got up to speed very quickly. Of course, had they failed to do so they would have been out within a year or two.
Speaking of Yegge and Amazon:
Amazon has continued to grow in simplicity and coverage, including ease of purchase with third-parties (eBay's dealer market). Meanwhile, buying on eBay is still a huge pain, with no integration between eBay and its own subsidiary.
Once you obtain certain scale, you can't do everything. It's equally ignorant to think an engineer can run a business top to bottom as it is to think an MBA can fully run an engineering company.
I so often read here MBA used pejoratively, but remember that most small businesses fail because they're run by people who have skills but no idea how to run a business. A major corporation needs both (and more!) skills.
I /hate/ going with hires who are "good enough." The nightmare employee is someone who is not quite bad enough to get fired.
Like Bezos has an arsenal of nasty questions up his sleeve and BillG actually knows what the f he's talking about.
You may be wondering why your comment got down-voted. It's not that we're a community of jerks, I promise. People just really prize a high signal-to-noise ratio here, and while we appreciate that you enjoyed the link, a better way to express that without adding noise is to up-vote the comment.
In general, you should post comments here only when the comment will provide value to someone else. That's largely the rubric by which it will be judged.
The last step before you’re ready to present to
him is this: Delete every third paragraph.
Now he's doing that again, in a big way. He's saying "Bezos is a genius" and not saying "Bezos is a micromanaging asshole"
For hacking this ideology, Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt is a good intro. (http://disciplined-minds.com)
No one is perfect and it is really our ability to play to our strengths and our weaknesses that defines our ability to succeed in life.
Powerpoint presentations are banned, instead you have to write your arguments as an essay.
So is the meeting essentially Bezos reading your writing, with the rest of the room waiting for any indication about the emperor's mood?
Or does the presenter read from the prose as a script?
Can any Amazon-ers give any insight?
As a related effect, it encourages people to write tightly focused documents that can be read in 15 minutes.
It's not a horrible practice.
The first Yegge post felt real, authentic, natural and fully charged. This second one although better formatted and edited, lacked something. It just seemed obigatory and bland.
It is rather amazing that you can feel emotions through words.
Or am I the only one thinking this way?
I think it was probably more considered but I'm guessing that everything he's written since THAT post has been more considered - it would be a completely natural reaction to having accidentally laid yourself bare. After all whom amongst us having accidentally forwarded an e-mail to the wrong person hasn't got a little more careful about what we say for a while afterwards?
But I still think it sounds genuine and honest, just a little more polished.
For a company so successful, one hears very little about how Amazon runs internally. Looking forward to Steve's next instalment.
But do you think it is a good thing?
The first time I noticed this was when I listed to the original and then studio version of 2 Pac's "Hit 'em up". In the first he was really and truly angry and you could feel it. The second version was 'just there'.
When actors and actresses get "into character" it is really clear. They mean what they act and it seems natural.
let us just say he was "in character" in the first post but not in the second.
Yegge's original piece was making a specific point and he came out with examples that supported that but that doesn't mean that those examples represent Yegge's overall view of Bezos and it's reasonable that he might want to throw out the other side of it.
In terms of whether it's honest - from both pieces I think it's fairly clear that Yegge doesn't believe that Bezos gives a shit what Yegge thinks so I see no reason why Yegge wouldn't be being truthful.
But even if Yegge was toning himself down, I don't have an issue with that.
I think that among some in the tech community there is a feeling that "honesty" and "truth" tend to trump everything. While that's great in theory the baggage (usually personal offence) that comes with it has to be considered.
Ultimately life is about getting stuff done and for most of us who aren't Jobs or Bezos level genius where brutal honesty will be forgiven, a "polished" truth will often get us better responses from others than it's more brutal counterpart.
If that's the case we all have to ask ourselves do you want to be right, or do you want to get things done?
Note: I'm not talking about lying here, I'm just talking about how you present the truth.
I do not think only anger can be conveyed.
I am not being specific about this very situation. And I agree that being diplomatic can be more effective most times.
Edited: To provide contest for question.
They eliminate the visceral, immediate reaction but that's only one part of the truth. If you're angry (or happy) at someone that's certainly a true feeling but is it any truer than the way you feel 10 minutes later when you've calmed down a bit and considered things?
If a colleague irritates me and I shout at him sure that's a representation of part of what I feel at that moment, but it doesn't represent the fact that ultimately I respect them and they normally do great work. So is shouting at them really my true feeling or just one small element of it that ultimately doesn't represent what I feel very well at all?
Ultimately though I think you have to ask yourself what am I try to achieve, how is what I'm going to say going to achieve that and am I happy that it really does represent "the truth" or is it just a knee jerk reaction (good or bad).
You have made great sense and raised a thought provoking questuion here.
Ultimately though I think you have to ask yourself what am I try to achieve, how is what I'm going to say going to achieve that and am I happy..."
You have summed it up perfectly.
Combining your two statements above is quite an insight. A great one. Thanks :)
If your emotions are destructive, wait to until they've changed to speak.
It's not like there's just one feeling that is "true." Furthermore, there's more than just feeling. The original, for example, was probably embellished to be more humorous and to get people's attention. The rant aspect-- that Google doesn't take service APIs seriously enough-- wasn't redacted or re-presented at all. So far, it's just the amazon-bashing, which, true as it may have been, was never intended to be a fair and comprehensive review of his beliefs or feelings; considered or not.
a) In the earlier accidentally leaked one, I felt he was being too harsh on Jeff Bezos, in the UI design story he stated. Even having only the data points of Yegge's essay, I could understand Bezos point as far as the UI changes were concerned: 'Why mend it if its not broken?'
Also Jeff Bezos, had a vision of building Amazon into a huge company, right from the start. He comes across as a rare _true visionary_, for many reasons. Two simple ones: success with Amazon.com and then with EC2 . So I did not like at all when Steve sort of derided him in his post.
> In some sense you wouldn’t even be human anymore. People like Jeff are better regarded as hyper-intelligent aliens with a tangential interest in human affairs.
The difference between this description and Yegge's later description of Bezos as being like the Dread Pirate Roberts of Princess Bride fame, is that Roberts is a clever human putting on a very clever show to develop a reputation which does work for Roberts.
Bezos on the other hand, by all accounts, actually does make people walk the plank. Whether he does it because he's a super-human alien intellect, or some other reason, doesn't change the fact that he's built up a climate of fear around him. If anything, describing him as a super-human alien disturbs me more than if he were acting out of the same motivation as the Dread Pirate Roberts.
And I'd venture to say that the OWS movement wouldn't have much against Bezos. They're more against fratboys that rose to prominence and wealth through connections. And finance. Yeah, definitely finance. It's there that they sense some kind of unwarranted self-worth and wealth.
Sure, he/they are just one of many, but if you don't hate the players the game continues.
There are many people in many positions who have a free ride because they got some doddering politician to introduce their legislation without thinking past the immediate benefits. This isn't how good laws are made and any business, lobbyist, or lawmaker even tangentially related to this stuff is a valid target.
> I think Yegge's just defined the best characterization of the 1%
"she stared directly into those soft blue eyes and knew, with an instinctive mammalian certainty, that the exceedingly rich were no longer even remotely human" - William Gibson, "Count Zero", 1986
Is it that simple? Of course not. But simple and resonant ideas are mediagenic, while complicated and more accurate ones are mediapathic.
(For anyone preparing an angry reply, please note the use of the word seemingly in the first paragraph. It's not there by accident.)
This is a Steve's post on how he conducts and what he expects from phone interviews.
It's over seven years old so proceed with care -- it's possible that his views changed since then.
Also, this is probably more of a bare minimum rather than the whole picture.
And if they were serious about it, Brin wouldn't have replied so flippantly. Google is just a one product company (with Gmail being the exception that proves the rule) lacking the humility and gravitas to be more.
"Experiencing a Significant Gravitas Shortfall"
You're confusing what Google's main product is with how they make money.
That's a bit insulting to the engineers at Google that make Search so good.
IMO, Emacs is one of the best pieces of code that the FSF makes, but there's an important sense in which it's not accurate to call it a "product" of theirs.
Google sells advertising space to advertisers, while they give away search and maps to the users to facilitate the selling of said advertising. (GMail is an exception because they offer business products built out of GMail.)
The fact that search might not be considered a product need not reflect a value judgment. Either way, it is a very nice service they provide.
But when people refer to Google as an advertising company rather than a search company, they are correct from a business standpoint. Likewise, many media companies -- whether like the New York Times or like Daring Fireball -- have always "really" been in the advertising sales business. (Though some, like the Times are also in the content sales business.) Those companies obviously take great pride in the content they produce that draw the eyeballs to those ads, but it wouldn't be a viable business if the content was all they did.
Search is a product, too. It's just not a direct source of revenue on it's own.
Also, I don't care if he was joking, it was inappropriate considering it was such valid criticism. Nothing is intimating that they get this at a high level and his joke just underscored that.
I would leave out the 'delete every third paragraph' bit, though. Or change it to 'delete anything that can be inferred.'
Snapshot of the blog http://web.archive.org/web/20090211060734/http://blog.layer8...
Here are a couple of examples:
via a Facebook page called 'notes': http://www.facebook.com/notes/web20/robert-scoble-on-cloud-c...
via user Scoble's wall: http://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble/posts/10150358391274655.
No Facebook account needed to view either.
Facebook started primarily as a website for college students to share privately with their friends.
Google Plus started by emphasizing that you can choose who you want to share with (including the public) and shipped with a "subscribe-like" feature that allowed technical people to add many of the same tech celebrities that they were following on Twitter. Since it takes awhile to convert one's friends to a new service, for many tech people, reading public posts by these other tech people became the prominent way they use the service.
You can mostly do the same things on each site (albeit at different levels of convenience), but their beginnings help shape how people think about and use the sites.
Much of the "Steve Jobs story" is quite public already - it's stuff that you just can't help knowing. Reed, Wozniak, kicked out of Apple, Next, Pixar, etc... I'm sure the bio will have some new details, but the basic plot is pretty well known.
Jeff Bezos, OTOH, is someone I know relatively little about. Also, given that my nascent LiberWriter business deals with Kindle formatting, decisions those guys are making have a very real impact on me.
Jeff Bezos may indeed be smart, and he may indeed come up with things that "domain experts" haven't yet thought of, but the explanations are usually much more timid and general than "Jeff is practically a giant-brained alien".
The whole thing felt like I was meeting the President - layer after layer of aides and executive assistants, tons of security, and briefings on where to sit, where to not sit, where to stand, where to not stand, look him in the eye when you shake his hand, etc etc. It was kind of surreal.
I haven't presented to any other big-corp CEO other than him, so I can't really draw any comparisons.
One thing Yegge brought up that I also felt the same about walking out of that room: Jeff is really smart, like really, really smart. I was warned about this beforehand and spent two weeks poring over every single detail, potential feature, everything about the idea I was presenting. He still managed to come out of left field with relevant questions that none of us had even thought of. So I can corroborate that side of the story.
The comparison to Liszt also seems apt - before we were even done presenting, he'd already grokked it to a surprising degree, and was already expanding upon the idea in out loud. You could hear my manager scribbling like a madman trying to get all of this down. This might not seem especially amazing, but the Director and VP level people I presented the very same idea to had not the same depth of insight. I remember being very impressed on the spot.
I'm no longer with Amazon, and I don't particularly want to go back - but that's not due to bad top management, IMO Bezos is one of the keenest tech CEOs around. He might be the closest thing we have left to Jobs.
To balance it out a bit and not make this seems like a complete Amazon love-fest: Jeff loved our idea, he gave us the green light right away. We left that room ecstatic thinking we were about to change the online retail experience forever.
Then middle management showed up. There was political infighting about who owns the project - it straddled multiple disciplines (hence why it was so groundbreaking), and there was a mixture of both hot-potato-oh-god-you-take-it and this-is-amazing-we-need-the-credit-on-this.
The teams that were interested were unwilling to yield to other teams that (rightfully, given their expertise and domain) wanted in, and some teams we needed support from kept punting it since it wasn't in their yearly plan (put together, well, a year or more ago). The project would have provided very powerfully tangible, very high-profile benefits to the customer, but said benefits weren't part of the metrics on which our department was getting judged, so at the VP level the willingness to devote resources was almost non-existent. There was lots of lip service given - especially about how a few people were able to hack together this thing and make it all the way to a Jeff Presentation.
But ultimately the project froze. It was, actually, probably the main reason I decided to leave Amazon for a smaller, more agile startup, where if the CEO wants something done, by golly, it's gettin' done.
This should be in a collection of Famous Last Words.
Even with this infighting and whatnot going on Amazon is still doing amazing things. I'd be interesting to see what it'd look like if they were able to execute everything well.
It seems that's also a crucial role of the exec - if they see something that needs to be happening and it's not, they need to get in there make the necessary changes.
There is a theory that gets posted here from time to time that As hire As and a few Bs that get through the filter, Bs hire Bs and a few Cs get through the filter, and so on down the line until you have hired people you really shouldn't have.
The other theory is promote until incompetent.
My guess is much more mundane, when you hire middle management they act like middle management. Which works as long as Their sphere of responsibility and control is well defined. When you need to cross cut concerns middle management actively fights against it. All most like using inheritance for code reuse and having deep inheritance hierarchies.
Middle management is really dangerous for this reason. Managers effectively are stuck with blinders; their one and only job, and often the only thing they know how to do (frequently through surreptitious or less-than-stellar means), is to keep their team and/or department sitting pretty in terms of normal company metrics. This correlates both to the resource allocation given a team and the rewards allocated specifically to the individuals that comprise that teams (including the manager, of course), which is why people appreciate "good" managers, until something unanticipated comes up and is killed by this rigid process.
Additionally, managers are human, and will make mistakes. Often it's like the frog-in-the-pot story--you don't notice the little mistakes, only the sum of their results.
I suppose the answer is "yes," given that MS seemed to manage with a minimal number of middle managers, at least based on the Joel Spolsky story shared elsewhere in this thread.
I cannot help it, but I have little respect for people who do this, especially if they are super smart.
I think there's a subtle (but important) distinction. Smart people can get away with having poor people skills: accidentally offending people, putting their foot in their mouth, and forgetting about the human element in technology. That can be forgiven, and may even be an advantage.
At the same time, there's a difference between having poor people skills and being an asshole: intentionally offending people, putting others down so you can get ahead, and willfully ignoring the human element make you an asshole. I think this often (but unfortunately not often enough) hurts people more than it helps.
Bezos sounds like a bit of a grey area. However, I don't think you can make a decision on this based on the performance of amazon. He's certainly successful at what he does, but there are any number of people who have created success at too high a cost: demoralized people, broken laws, and ultimately a bigger burden is placed on society than the gain that made them successful.
But in my book, a smart boss can motivate you without repeated verbal abuse or destroying your self esteem. Of course you can still be a successful boss otherwise.
Actually, majority of successful leaders (founders, etc.) have s very strong "bullshit detector": for kind of bullshit one can use to receive promotions all way up to a director position - even up to VP.
And it also shows that some people are not succeeding because they are paralyzed by fear of poverty.
"That’s where the “Dread Pirate Bezos” line came from. I worked hard and had fun, but every day I honestly worried they might fire me in the morning. Sure, it was a kind of paranoia. But it was sort of healthy in a way. I kept my resume up to date, and I kept my skills up to date, and I never worried about saying something stupid and ruining my career. Because hey, they were most likely going to fire me in the morning."
How else can you know your on the 'edge' of your own personal abilities? Nice to know that no matter who you are, those feelings don't go away... unless your Bezos (hey there has to be a few people like that around). :-)
Perhaps, inducing that into your team makes you a good leader. Perhaps not.
As an aside: did he just say Franz Liszt was "famous-ish"?!
It's pasted in the top comment of the HN story:
As an aside: did he just say Franz Liszt was "famous-ish"?!"
His style seems to be hyperbole and tongue-in-cheek mostly. I wouldn't take it very seriously.
Back on topic, I always used to smile when I saw the Lisp interpreter known as Franz Lisp load up. Pity they re-branded it.
Last week accidentally posted internal rant service platforms my public account. It somehow viral, which nothing short stupefying given it was massive Wall Text. The thing still surreal.
Amazingly, nothing happened to at Google. just laughed me a, all the up to top, for committed what be the of all screwups in history.
But also listened, is super. I probably talk much it, but already figuring how to with some the issues raised. I I shouldn’t surprised. When I in my post that “does everything”, I meant. When they’re with any at all, it’s technical organizational or, they set to solve in a way.
Anyway, whenever goes viral, start wondering it was or staged. accident was. While I no proof, can offer what I is the convincing evidence: the last and a years, I never once on Amazon. Even just months ago, a keynote I gave a conference, was pretty when I about my there. I’ve skirted any shortcomings and on what do well.
I still a lot friends at. In fact place is of people admire and. And up now I prided myself my professionalism I have about Amazon. on the, even in internal memo, uncharacteristically unprofessional me. So been feeling guilty for past week.
Without retracting I said, like to a more picture for. I’m going try to that picture some true that I’ve shared publicly. secondhand: it’s stuff I myself there. hope you’ll the stories, because it’s hell of interesting place.
Amazon started Jeff, I’ll my stories one about.
Amazon War #1: Jeff
Over years I people give to Jeff and come bruised: emotionally, often career-ily. you came with a or a, you were for joy. to Jeff a gauntlet tends to people back the cave lick their and stay of the for a.
I say and you think PowerPoint, no: he PowerPoint there years ago. not allowed the campus. you present Jeff, you it as.
One day came time me to to Jeff. felt like... don’t know, how they around you you’re going meet the. People giving last-minute advice, you luck, you past of admins security guards. like you’re a movie. gladiator movie.
I’d spent watching Jeff action before turn came, I had in an way. My presentation --, roughly speaking about the skills a engineer ought know -- was resounding success. loved it. everyone was me on back and me like just completed game-winning hail-mary or something. VP told privately: “Presentations Jeff never that well.”
here’s the: I had suspected Jeff going to my presentation. see, I noticed two about him, him over years, that had either caught on, or else had not out how make the actionable.
Here how I. Amazon people, note. This will you. I dead serious.
prepare a for Jeff, make damn you know there is know about subject. Then a prose explaining the and solution(s). it exactly way you write it a leading or industry on the.
is: assume already knows about it. he knows than you about it. if you groundbreakingly original in your, just pretend old hat him. Write prose in succinct, direct, way that would write a world-leading on the.
almost done. last step you’re ready present to is this: every third.
Now you’re to present!
in the there was famous-ish composer/pianist Franz Liszt. is widely to have the greatest who ever. He could anything you him, including stuff not written for, like opera. He was staggeringly good sight-reading that brain was fully engaged the first. After that get bored start embellishing his own.
Bezos is goddamned smart you have turn it a game him or be bored annoyed with. That was first realization him. Who how smart was before became a -- let’s just it was “frigging smart”, he did Amazon from. But for he’s had of people care of for him. doesn’t have do anything all except himself in morning and presentations all long. So really, REALLY at reading. He’s like Franz Liszt sight-reading presentations.
you have start tearing whole paragraphs, even pages, make it for him. will fill the gaps without missing beat. And brain will less time get annoyed the slow of your.
I mean, what it be like start off an incredibly person, arguably first-class genius, then somehow up in situation where have a view of industry battlefield ten years. only do have more than anyone, and access more information anyone else, also have long-term eagle-eye that only handful of in the enjoy.
In sense you even be anymore. People Jeff are regarded as aliens with tangential interest human affairs.
how do prepare a for a alien? Well, my second: He will you. Knowing about your is only first-line defense you. It’s armor that eat through the first minutes. He going to at least deep insight the subject, there on spot, and going to you look a complete.
me folks, saw this time and, for years. Bezos has these incredibly, experienced domain surrounding him huge meetings, on a basis he of shit they never coming. It’s guaranteed facepalm.
So I he was to think something that hadn’t. I know what might be, I’d spent trying to of everything. had reviewed material with of people. it didn’t. I knew was going blindside me, that’s what when you to Jeff.
you assume coming, then not going catch you as off-guard.
of course happened. I Data Mining. in the. He asked point-blank, very: “Why aren’t Mining and Learning in list?” And laughed right his face, sent a wave through stone-faced jury VPs who been listening silence, waiting a cue Jeff as whether he going to happy or was headed the salt.
I laughed I was. He’d caught with my down around ankles, right front of, despite all excruciating weeks preparation. I even deleted a third the exposition to keep giant brain, but it matter. He’d it again, I looked a total in front everyone. It was awesome.
So, of course couldn’t help. And I: “Yup, you me. I know why not in. It should. I’m a. I’ll add.” And he, and we on, and was great. the VPs smiling. It the hell of me they’d had wait for cue, but whatever. was good.
have to: most people scared around because they waaaay too about trying keep their. People in positions sometimes a little much personal invested in success. Can imagine how it must for him be around people all long? But -- well, I I was to get every single. So fuck. Might as aim high go out a ball flame.
That’s the “Dread Bezos” line from. I hard and fun, but day I worried they fire me the morning. it was kind of. But it sort of in a. I kept resume up date, and kept my up to, and I worried about something stupid ruining my. Because hey, were most going to me in morning.
At any rate, removing every third word removes less informational content than every paragraph: an idea can often be recovered in your case, whereas it is quite difficult to recover an idea if it has been removed altogether.
And I don't think it is because of my 'giant brain', considering how long it took me to understand Taylor Series in university.
If I wanted to find too-smart, I would go to Less Wrong, (who seem to be smarter than HN on average; that might just be a side effect of the discussion topic) and ask them where they would go to find too-smart. And repeat. I don't think HN is where I'd end up.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ub/competent_elites/ suggests "hedge fund managers" for step two.
So if he knows everything, why am I writing for him?
But by the time you've given your presentation, in which you've thoughtfully omitted the long winded explanations that you'd give to someone who knows nothing about the subject, he'll have deeper insight into what you've presented than you do. And that's the true mark of intelligence.
Internet attention spans suck.
Remember his first post? Amazon is doing everything wrong and Google is doing everything right.
If Bezos is a super intelligent alien, this begs the question, why is Amazon doing everything wrong?
Also, Google didn't fire Steve Yegge because he did what their 6-figured marketing people couldn't: With a single post, Steve Yegge brought millions of uniques to Google+.