Fabulous project and write-up by one of the nicest guys in the video game business. Not to be missed.
A couple of months ago I found David Eagleman’s Sum: Forty Tales from the Afterlives. This is a fun, imaginative little book — highly recommended. In the spirit of the book, I couldn’t help but write #41 myself:
As far as anyone knows, there is no afterlife, since there is no death. You simply come into existence and never die. There are theories that you might eventually collapse or compress into nothingness, but in billions of years of known history, no one ever has.
You will see plenty of “death”, but none of it is real. Anyone who appears to die has already diverged from any number of shared realities with any number of other beings, who at the “time of death” only see an echo of the “dead person”. This always happens automatically — as you get older, you learn to recognize when you’re going to “shift” instead of “die”.
You don’t find all of this out until you leave your home planet — in this case, Earth. Everybody leaves their home planet on the first shift.
You will change forms many times. Most folks just change as needed, according to the environment in which they find themselves, in order to acclimate and fit in. It all happens involuntarily, like breathing air on Earth.
Though it certainly happens, it’s best if you don’t discover the truth about death too soon — for example, within your first decade or two if you were born on Earth. If you grow up without a firm grasp of the idea of mortality, you almost always wind up adopting a sort of depressingly destructive attitude about it all.
I was looking through some of my Disqus comments and was pleasantly surprised at some of my replies to various discussions. Like everyone else, blog commenting is a mostly in-the-moment affair for me, and while I guess that quoting myself is an arrogant sort of thing to do, I believe that these quotes will make you think a bit, especially if you’re in a startup and/or the video game industry. Some light editing for context.
Is Google evil? Hell yes – it’s corporately impossible for them not to be at their scale. Apple is also evil at scale. Spotlight as an app-mining mechanism ultimately results in plenty of ads from apps, in addition to 80+% chatter from zombie apps. If Apple does evolve Spotlight into a full-on Google competitor (oh the irony, considering Job’s quote), their ability to hold off on ad-spam results is only possible because their revenue model doesn’t need/want it – yet. Privilege remains committed to the fantasy that the natural result of scale is diversification into non-core competencies through market consolidation/acquisition and wildly expensive internal development. The root of the root problem is that no large tech companies – certainly not Google or Apple – believe that their Scrooge McDuck money bins can ever be big enough.
Having traveled to Silicon Valley several times per year for two decades, lived there for seven years (99-06), and seeing my son’s experiences for the last three years since he moved there fresh out of college, the fundamental SV milieu hasn’t changed much. I still grok it as a theme park. In fact using religion as a metaphor, SV as a religious theme park hits home. It’s presumptuous, exploitative, shiny, kitchy, dogmatic and arrogantly opportunistic. And if you grok the concept of creating truly meaningful software out of nothing but your own mind and mettle, SV is like one of those big crazy Texas churches, except you may be the god that changes the world. SV is where art fucks science, creates a singularity, then rebrands it as a virgin birth and the second coming for the next generation congregation. Or something like that.
In my industry (video games), from my perspective as a developer, things are a bit different from the bubblicious milieu. It’s more like a dunken orgy inside a rocketship to the bottom, where 0.01% landowner-publishers are in slave-heaven with developer-unfriendly disty deals and mini fickle-finger-of-fate awards in lieu of cash. Apple and Google changed distribution forever. Absolutely no one has any real ideas about how to deal with the scale of the market and the ever non-presence of discovery. Customers have been taught to expect crap for free. The industry used to be cutthroat and hit-driven — the good old days! Now it’s just a big lottery.
In the gaming segment, big companies (publishers) and small companies (developers) have undergone a big relationship shift. Prior to the rise of mobile and social games and the F2P model, developers were valued as reliable sources of content that would have a direct impact on publisher success. Today the developer has much less real value to the publisher – discovery is so difficult that most publishers can only afford a very wide net to catch distribution deals. Since production costs have only risen, developers produce less compelling content. The race to the bottom is getting so big that the starting line is elbows-to-elbows with out-of-shape runners. Hence developers only help publishers be successful to the extent that they incrementally increase the probability of a hit game in which profits are shared equally.
Large-scale organizations (of all kinds) appear more and more like big collections of entropic vagaries whose operational tools are over-confidence, short-term accounting, obfuscation, denial, deflection, disinformation and so on. These are old tools that cannot hope to be of any real use up against cyber-attacks. Limiting organizational growth would by definition limit the impact of a single cyber-attack. Of course this is blasphemy to all modern economic systems. Sigh.
Something I’ve learned and am still learning is that communication is almost always about feelings and the needs behind them. If I’m mindful of this and realize that I’m co-authoring the story of the conversation then I tend to listen much better and not lecture and analyze so much; if not I’m just data without a soul, steamrolling everyone’s needs including my own.
The collection and storage of data seems impossible to stop, given the ubiquitous commercial nature of the Internet. Rabbit’s been out of the hat since ’94 or so and it’s far easier to re-use that rabbit than to create another hat. The bigger issue may be Peak Abstraction. We’re all leaves in various trees with chains of nodes dumping us into super-groups, on up a given tree until we hit its root node. When nodes contain too many sub-nodes to evaluate logically/meaningfully and leaves are far removed from their nodes, yet power enforces any sort of algorithmically-motivated action toward the leaves, we hit some pretty scary peaks. If one of those trees is government, the air will be damned thin up there.
Most engineers, artists, designers I know have always had side projects — it’s the special stuff they “want” to do away from the normal stuff they “need” to do. Sometimes the special is an off-shoot from the normal, often not. If the special becomes normal then maybe it becomes a “thing” whose fundamental bits are mostly immutable. Maybe it’s a needy thing. It needs to impress, it needs validation, it needs to generate value, it needs to function beyond the sparky neocortextual passion that first formed it. Once normalized, the full expression of the original vector is lost, or hard to compute. So on to the next project.
Productivity purely as a function of time makes some sense where it’s clear that time is inherent to product[ivity], e.g. manufacturing when quantity is the primary objective, or old-school QA. But it starts to break down past the short-term. In software I see it generally as a violent process standing in for trust, a red flag with a herring logo on it, beating in the breeze over management’s head. If the objective is to serve your time then time is who you serve. You are timetive, not productive.
Android developers, in particular, try to remember that Google is run by the best and led by super-geniuses, unlike those wannabes at Apple. They know this is true because, well, everybody knows it now. And they remember it when they have to use lousy development tools and do battle with the Eclipse IDE and slow, buggy emulators. They remember it when they’re struggling with an over-engineered, clunky, dubious API, debugging in a black box or on any of the dozens of test devices they had to buy, and they realize Goggle has much more important things to do than write documentation. And they know that Google could spend more time with device manufacturers to decrease platform fragmentation, but they trust that there’s a strategy in place that must be beyond their understanding. In all seriousness, I totally agree that Google has an enormous amount of talent and they are on a steady march to innovative user experiences in several areas. Neural network-based voice recognition is exciting. But they have a ton of housekeeping to do, too.
Except for retail, these models are a predictable response to market scale, and the gaming industry is more creative and sophisticated in their use of them due to its history as a hit-driven business. But the fundamental problem is ever-present: Quality doesn’t scale. The non-traditional market is massive and getting massive-er by the day. The game shelf is a mile long with a handful of endcaps. Funding a high-quality game is very risky since it cannot be done on the cheap. So quality is the first thing to go out the door – it’s intuitive (and may be a fallacy) to diversify instead. Rather than betting your budget on one high-fidelity game, the platforms ask that you create many low-fi games with minimally viable mechanics and art then invest in creative monetization and cross-promotion to keep re-leveraging your players across the catalogue. And it makes some sense until you realize it’s not quite sustainable because customer expectations scale, too – especially new users you’ve transformed into gamers.
I have mild OCD. I hate it when I’m meta-OCD and become OCD about my OCD as I seek to suppress rather than repress. Finding data specific to entrepreneurs as a class sounds tough. Looking at type a’s, highly creative types and super-driven product people and engineer types, maybe successful execs, makes some sense to me. Deconstruct the entrepreneur into component sub-classes, at least that’s a direction in which to head. Qualitatively, my own experiences with other entrepreneurs suggests that they — especially the product and engineer types — are prone to depression and OCD, manic behavior, excessive hubris and definitely divorce. They are also prone to remarkable displays of kindness, honesty, purpose, courage and genius, qualities I observe somewhat less frequently in others.
In my business (video games), looking for a segment where you can become the first mover is a little analogous to implementing a new or under-adopted game mechanic so well that you become the definition of the category. Others will follow your idea but wish they could follow your execution. Rovio, for example — they weren’t the first mobile 2D physics game, but their product execution was first-rate and their market execution was prescient (continual engagement with players through lots of content updates — few were doing this on mobile at the time — rather than feature updates and new skus). Now they’re scaling and evolving and so far doing a good-to-excellent job of that. IMO all software companies should study the video game industry in preparation for the massive markets that are coming our way over the next decade — at that scale practically everything will become hit-driven and a measurement window of six months may be generous.
Somehow people convince themselves that there is never enough time but it’s really not that hard to be responsive. The good will generated alone is worth the effort, and often there’s a business payoff — sometimes way down the line but it happens to me not infrequently (give people time and they will surprise and delight). In my industry (gaming) we often work with external teams. I only get to meet these guys in person once a year at best (usually at an industry conference), otherwise the communication is project-focused email/phone/Skype. When someone reaches out to me for other types of help or connectivity, it’s an opportunity to put something good out into the universe. The way I look at it, we’re all on the same team. Practicing trust and reliability is good work. It’s a chance to show quality. It’s a happiness-inducer and life-extender.
As of March, we’re at 343,915 games in the App Store, at a rate of 130 new games per day.
Think of it: 343,915 games at your fingertips — if you spend just five minutes on each game for 12 hours per day, 7 days per week, it would only take you about six and half years to try them all, and as you finish the last one, you’ll have over 300,000 new additions to check out! And that’s just games in the App Store — there are even more on Google Play!
Isn’t that just incredible? Isn’t Apple (and Google) amazing? I mean, they’ve really changed the landscape. We’re talking well over 300,000 shitty games developed by amateurs, and several hundred games that people actually play, developed by data analysts and suits who had, or raised, enough money to exploit the market.
Of course there are periodic hits that seemingly come from nowhere (you know, the Jobs-Woz garage developers who hit RPRT*), and that’s enough to keep the myth alive that anyone, with the mettle and motivation, can become a success!
Oh what a world of opportunity! All my ex-game developer friends were positively sick of making a living developing games anyway. Why, any one of them now has the chance to start anew and maybe even become successful enough to drop $30 million on a little privacy!
Apple and Google — Steve (RIP), Tim, Larry, Sergey, Eric, I don’t say this often enough: You guys are like gods really! Like good little warlords, you raped and pillaged software (especially games!) the world over. You figured out how to redistribute the wealth right up the ladder. You turned software distribution into a downright software exchange, reminding us of that great scene in the movie Trading Places:
Billy Ray: No thanks, guys, I already had breakfast this morning.
Mortimer Duke: This is not a *meal*, Valentine. We are here to TRY to explain to you what is we do here.
Randolph Duke: We are ‘commodities brokers’, William. Now, what are commodities? Commodities are agricultural products… like coffee that you had for breakfast… wheat, which is used to make bread… pork bellies, which is used to make bacon, which you might find in a ‘bacon and lettuce and tomato’ sandwich.
[Billy Ray turns and gives a long look at the camera]
Randolph Duke: Randolph
Randolph Duke: And then there are other commodities, like frozen orange juice… and GOLD. Though, of course, gold doesn’t grow on trees like oranges.
Randolph Duke: Clear so far?
Billy Ray: [nodding, smiling] Yeah.
Randolph Duke: Good, William! Now, some of our clients are speculating that the price of gold will rise in the future. And we have other clients who are speculating that the price of gold will fall. They place their orders with us, and we buy or sell their gold for them.
Mortimer Duke: Tell him the good part.
Randolph Duke: The good part, William, is that, no matter whether our clients make money or lose money, Duke & Duke get the commissions.
Mortimer Duke: Well? What do you think, Valentine?
Billy Ray: Sounds to me like you guys are a couple of bookies.
Randolph Duke: [chuckling, patting Billy Ray on the back] I told you he’d understand.
*Right Place, Right Time
Little much does skip past the face of a bear,
he weighs one of two endpoints to swat
to play, to chew, to fall, to lie.
Maybe stuck in prayer position does he look up
before he goes to sleep? Does he listen for something?
Lard belly feels good only for rest.
When he does wake does he then
at some moment think about flames or fire?
Quick sugar beef jerky for a large time.
When he does wake does he then
at some moment remember blue lines on 3rd-grade paper walls?
Crunchy wet middle of a cracked leaf bed.
When he does wake does he then
at some moment see gills feather their drops?
Salt rubbed scales between steel-post mob teeth.
When he dozes away, canoes then
at some moment see the paddle match his mechanical paw.
Mark bark big claw limit of the physics in the math.
Maybe stuck in player position does he look down
before waking up? Does he listen for something?
Hard jelly cracks like double-sided dreams.
Little much does skip past the face of a bear,
he weighs one of two endpoints to swat
to fall, to lie, to play, to chew.
Brad Feld, one of my favorite bloggers, wrote a little gem this week called Something New Is Fucked Up In My World Every Day. It’s an inspirational reminder that the way out of your problems is through, and that you don’t need to look far to discover how insignificant your significant woes may be. It also got me thinking — sometimes problems don’t look like problems.
Years ago my mother managed a facility for psychiatric patients who were hoping to eventually reintegrate into society. Once, on a visit home, I was chatting with her in her office and a guy knocked on the door, came in with a clipboard and a stack of papers, and proceeded to discuss medication schedules and patients with her.
He was dressed neatly, was very friendly and personable. He introduced himself to me and asked how my visit was going. He enthusiastically talked about how much he enjoyed working with my mother.
After he left I said, “Great staff, mom, he seems like a go-getter”, to which she replied, “He’s a patient — one of our most difficult”. Turns out that he was a well-adjusted, normal fellow most of the time (though delusional about his role there), but every couple of weeks he would have a big psychotic break for a day — he was sort of bipolar without the depression, with short, intense manic periods. Without medication, he was much worse.
Things aren’t always okay even when they seem okay, and any solution to a problem is susceptible to regression and entropy. Sometimes you don’t translate yourself through suffering as much as you scale its effects in some way — the operation is multiplicative, for better or worse. Very often suffering is recurrent, making a solution to a problem seem more like modulo than subtraction.
In the Eat Me If You Wish parable in Brad’s post, a man whose cave is full of demons makes them disappear by surrendering to their unknown wishes. The way I interpret this is that he renders his demons powerless by giving them his full attention — focus yields control, and suffering effectively becomes a choice.
I tend to think of suffering as more of a stream, a thread that runs in the background or is brought into focus. It doesn’t disappear — it’s clamped to some small epsilon and will never scale to zero. It’s a problem that doesn’t always look like a problem. Perhaps this makes suffering more about when than what, and when is something I can manage much better than what.
I was chatting a little while ago with an old friend who had a good story about corporate hiring craziness. I’m always amazed that this kind of thing occurs. The following is based on that story (queue Dragnet theme). The names have been changed to protect the innocent.
One day Tom, a software engineer with many years of experience, received an email from Mark, who worked for a big company in another city. Mark was looking for senior engineers for a new team he was forming within the company, who could “really make a difference” on a “special project, like a startup within the company” where “time is of the essence”, and who were willing to “work remotely”.
Tom, who had a steady career doing contract work from home, found himself interested. His current gig was ending soon, and he had tentatively lined up his next contract. But he had heard good things about Mark, and was surprised to see a corporate job that preferred remote work. So he shot back an email with his resume, asking for details about the new team.
A week later, with no reply, he wrote it off — Mark, after all, was a dot, not a line. However after another week, he received an email from one of the company’s recruiters, Jane, who wanted to do a phone interview. He wrote back that he’d like to have more info on the team and that he had never heard from Mark. Jane replied that they’d discuss it all in the phone interview.
On the phone, Tom couldn’t seem to get a straight answer from Jane about Mark’s team. She asked about what kind of work Tom preferred since she had several openings. She said there was a great relocation package. She was impressed by his experience and thought he’d be an asset to practically any team.
Tom replied that he didn’t want to relocate, that Mark’s email had specifically asked for remote help, and that he needed to find out more about Mark’s team and its purpose. Jane said she would do some homework and get back to him.
Over a month passed when Jane called. Several teams within the company had seen his resume and were interested in him. She’d like to set up a live coding test as soon as she could schedule the first programmer she could find to administer it.
Tom politely replied that he had already begun work for a new client, and though he’d be happy to have a technical discussion — with another senior engineer — he’d first need to speak to someone who could give him the skinny on Mark’s new team. Jane then appeared to hang up on him.
Tom never heard from Jane again. Another month passed when he received the exact same email Mark had sent before, almost three months earlier, still looking for senior engineers.
So what actually happened? Here’s a guess at the breakdown:
1. Mark receives the go-ahead for a new team.
2. Mark taps his network for leads, receives a bunch of resumes, forwards them to Jane.
3. In the meantime, other programmers in the company ping Mark about the new team.
4. Mark tells Jane that he may have internal candidates.
5. Jane, busy with other positions that need to be filled, smiles and dials.
6. Mark has to put the kilbosh on the new team, end of quarter stuff, tells Jane he’s holding off.
7. Jane smiles and dials.
8. Quarter ends, the new team is a go-ahead again, but the internal candidate pool is empty.
9. Mark once more taps his network for leads.
While I can’t know what really occurred, it’s not a stretch to say that a fundamental problem was that Mark wasn’t engaging with potential hires directly. This is not unusual in many large organizations, where managers have so much on their plates that they need HR to take over hiring. Sadly, there are many managers who simply don’t hire.
Almost three months in, 2015 is at last starting to feel like a new year. I think that’s because 2014, for me, still feels as though it begin last April, a month that was the culmination of a journey that I began in 2013.
2013 was an intense period of transition, new projects and new graphics research. By the time summer arrived, I was working extra long days, obsessed with new ideas for games, procedural worlds and some deliciously math-heavy work for a client. Summer brought along some punishing trail runs, too — extra hot, very dry, and I was loving every minute of it.
Near the end of that summer, I developed a prostate infection — my first and only case of prostatitis. I learned that it was not uncommon, and after a visit to the Urologist and a couple of rounds of antibiotics, it was gone. However, my PSA, which was a bit high during the infection (not uncommon either), did not return to normal. This led to a Digital Rectal Exam, which was normal, a cystoscopy (normal) and a prostate biopsy in January. The biopsy, to my utter surprise, was not normal, revealing prostate cancer.
You never really think you’ll hear the words you have cancer and, predictably, the moments that follow are impossibly immobile. Sitting in the doctor’s office, holding my wife Kahty’s [sic] hand, I was in a singular state of frozen shock (my Urologist at one point actually said, “you’re obviously in shock right now”). But there was good with the bad: it was early stage (though not early enough for active surveillance), no palpable tumor, not terribly aggressive morphology and an optimistic prognosis due to my age and health.
I wasn’t unfamiliar with prostate cancer. My dad had been treated successfully for it just a few years ago, opting for radiation, while a few years earlier my father-in-law, with a family history of long-life, exceptional health for his age, and as a retired surgeon who was very comfortable with surgery, had a successful prostatectomy. Both of them are much older than me — it was awful, but not a complete shock, when they were diagnosed. Prostate cancer is not unusual in older men, and many men will eventually die with it but not from it.
It’s more unusual for a man in his 40’s — in this case, me — but certainly not unheard of. There is no definitive research on the cause. As a life-long runner I was in good shape and had never had a problem “down there” (other than the prostatitis, which was more annoying than alarming). I knew that I’d need to add a PSA test to my regular checkups soon, and that I was in a higher risk category because of my father’s diagnosis (though interestingly, according to my 23andme workup, genetically I was lower-risk), but I hadn’t thought too much about it. (Looking back on it now, I may have benefited from having my PSA checked earlier, since it might have led to even earlier detection).
Three months later, after interviews with surgeons and tons of research (this book is required, as is this forum, and this, and this), Kahty and I found ourselves on a two-week “holiday” in Duarte, California at City of Hope. After checking into the hotel where I would subsequently recover for ten days after surgery, two days later we arrived at my real destination: three hours of anesthetic oblivion, my body stretched out and rotated, feet-up, on an eight-foot table, six robotic arms inside my abdomen.
My doctor, Dr. Timothy Wilson — one of the top RALP surgeons on the west coast — did an incredible job removing my prostate. My physical recovery has been better than textbook. Common side effects (decreased bladder control and ED) have essentially been non-issues. Nearby lymph nodes removed during the procedure showed no signs of metastasis, nor did the surrounding tissues; the cancer was confined to the prostate. Since the surgery, I have seen my PSA rise slightly and I will receive adjuvant radiation to cement the cure, in fact I’ll be participating in a treatment study at City of Hope, led by Dr. Sagus Sampath, a passionate Radiation Oncologist who is devising better and faster ways to treat prostate cancer with radiation. My statistical probability of a cancer-free future is good, and I remain in good health.
Emotionally the story is not quite textbook — or maybe it is — to say it’s been a roller coaster doesn’t really capture it. On the heels of the Kineplay service dying a quick death in 2013 and a short bout of depression unlike anything I’d ever experienced, my cancer diagnosis was an insult-to-injury, kick-me-while-I’m-down sort of affair. These things never have good timing.
When we started Kineplay I thought that the path before us was solid. I’d spent a lot of time in startups and intimately understood the milieu. I knew we were in for a ride but I was confident it was balanced and well-designed: Every low would have a high and the highs would be thrilling. But the plain and simple truth is that, like so many others before me, I failed to make it happen. I have plenty of buts:
But we were remarkable. We had the experience, drive, passion and technical chops. We had a solid network with great connections. We received nice early press and credible encouragement from colleagues and friends. We launched our first product in six months when it would have taken just about any other team I know twice as long with double the team. Our demos were killer.
But we were motivated. Our core relied on content in addition to service and we moved into content too quickly. We trusted potential partners too easily — the industry is seriously cutthroat and we knew that all too well, but we couldn’t get the wishful out of our thinking. We were mesmerized by our own bullshit.
But the industry changed. We had a front-row seat to the changes that the video game industry was going through, but clung to our comfort zone (traditional game design) as a core piece of a non-traditional product (mobile game discovery) in an overwhelmingly non-traditional, short-dev-cycle, massively hit-driven market.
But we were early. It’s a line I’ve heard frequently from other failed startups. In our case it really was true: We had a product and service that nobody knew they wanted. They still don’t.
But we were under-capitalized. The product was too big for us to bootstrap on our own but we thought we would get lucky. We became classic victims of our own over-optimism and by the time we understood that, the industry had pivoted and we were out of funding.
When we knew that Kineplay wasn’t going to live up to the dream, I had a moment not unlike that dreaded day in the Urologist’s office — time stands still when you’re deep into the realization that you have failed spectacularly.
So much has been written about failure, especially with startups and often by others who have failed big but have had subsequent successes. Everybody loves a happy ending, especially when it happens to them. And it’s all too human to be drawn to the drama of failure — as long as it doesn’t happen to us.
Nothing can prepare you for failing to make a powerful dream come true. Such a failure is something you don’t ever forget, not really — there is always a sense of your own lost potential, real or imagined. And cancer, or any condition that has the potential to extinguish your own natural expectation of health and strength, is much more frightening because it waves the biggest failure of all — mortality — in front of you with abandon.
2014 might have found me somewhere near the summit of three of the most intense and happy years of my life — instead it was more like a horrifyingly real MacGuffin, an anti-climatic last scene where the main character’s fate takes a nose-dive instead of arcing toward resolution. It was a year of long, dark tea-times replete with sleepless, soul-crushing nights punctuated by solitary days that swung from meditative to manic on a whim. It was a year of coping with mortality in the most non-academic of ways.
But like Dirk Gently, I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. Kahty was there for me every step of the way — I don’t know where I’d be today without her — as were our families and friends. And for the first time in my life, I grokked what it must be like for others who have real depression as I experienced, at times, little control over my own thoughts and feelings.
Even more, I possess an empathy now that is difficult to articulate. It’s made profound when I see others suffering, from the all-too-frequent images these days of economically-deprived and oppressed cultures, to the homeless fellow on the street, to the elderly woman using a cart to get around the store, to the countless other patients at City of Hope who have been through debilitating physical trauma in their very personal battles with cancer. But it’s just as perceptible when I listen — really listen — to my friends and family. Life is hard on some level for everyone — no one is exempt from suffering.
The road leading up to today has been a gradual transformation into a new narrative where I’m reconnecting with myself and those I love, re-evaluating the importance of good work and purposeful and mindful living. I’m looking in directions I had not previously noticed. I’m still a self-absorbed person — sometimes to the point of arrogance — and my obsession with computer graphics and games has not changed. I still have a fire in my gut to make things that are beautiful, functional and valuable to others. I’m still focused on achieving something meaningful. I still believe deeply in the importance of play and fun.
But I’m seeing more and more clearly the inestimable value of how suffering threads itself into the fabric of being human, and I have a strong sense that I’ve been taught something big, that I’ve leveled up. I’m humbly starting to take stock of what I’ve learned.
A few final words: if you’re over 40, or if you’re in a high risk category, insist on a PSA test with your annual checkup. If caught early, prostate cancer is very, very treatable. If you’ve been diagnosed with prostate cancer, listen up:
Be the CEO of your condition. It’s up to you to lead the charge and assemble the best team you can find to treat you. Don’t stop educating yourself — read everything you can and connect with others, online and especially in-person, who are going through the same thing.
Realize the value of trusting your team — there is not enough time for you to know what they know. This is especially hard to do if you’re an engineer or someone who is a deep problem-solver by nature, but it’s critical that you trust and accept your team that you assembled.
No matter how bad you think things are, it can be worse, and it is worse, right now, for far more people than you will ever know. Try not to obsess over what you may lose; consider the possibility that you will gain something valuable.
Contemplate the idea that you will end up where you need to be. Don’t think of this as woo-woo, think of it as accepting the outcome of the moment you set your team in motion.
Try to have a sense of humor. I’ll never forget the laughter when, just before surgery, I asked for a different IV — something in a “gluten-free organic”. We’re all human, and the work that your team does is serious, complex stuff. Your attitude makes all the difference and gives them the confidence they need to do their best.
I’ve been reading Paul Graham’s essays for many years and almost always find something insightful. His latest post, Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In, is no exception.
However more great programmers will not help Silicon Valley.
Most US companies are based on a strongly-typed hierarchy whose evolutionary path is entropic and bureaucratic. This means shallow leadership, ineffective hiring practices and the inability to identify and reward greatness. A programmer cannot be a commodity if his or her value is dependent on this cluster-fuckery and as a non-commodity he is indistinguishable.
I wish that Graham didn’t think of programmers as commodities to begin with. Maybe he doesn’t, but I don’t know how he could have written the essay otherwise.
I don’t know why I’m surprised that Ted Cruz thinks Net Neutrality is a bad idea. President Obama’s statement today is very reasonable IMO. In case you haven’t read it, here are his main bullet points:
No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.
Look, the Republicans are 100% justified when they remind us that government can get out of control and that we should not allow that to happen. But some things need regulation and the big ISPs will pwn their users if given half a chance. I can’t see how Cruz cannot possibly be on someone’s payroll after tweeting something so ridiculous. And Limbaugh and Hannity are probably already lining up to sell advertising on this issue. Sigh.