[lutusp]

> Study what? I'm not looking for shortcuts, I'm looking for ideas that help consolidate the concepts of 1) building things interesting to you, and 2) solving real problems

You're suffering from a misconception -- that a commercial success results from a deterministic sequence of choices and events. This isn't true -- there is a large element of chance involved in modern success stories.

If this were not true, people could apply the known laws of success, become successful, and retire, without ever having to think creatively. In fact, a computer could automatically apply the rules of success without brooking human interference.

Success depends on a combination of creativity, hard work, and chance. No amount of creativity and hard work can eliminate the role played by chance.

> I'm looking for ideas ...

With all respect, if you become successful, it will be because of ideas you discovered on your own.

[coralreef]

Fair enough, but I believe there are patterns to success, and I believe there are people's opinions worth reading. PG's essays have mostly been true to my experiences.

Build something people want, have a co-founder... I don't necessarily need to learn those lessons on my own, yet understanding them gives me a vast advantage over someone who doesn't.

[lutusp]

> ... I believe there are patterns to success ...

Those patterns are illusions that rely entirely on hindsight. How can I be sure? If there really was a meaningful pattern to success, a computer could carry it out like a recipe, and achieve an automated success each time it was executed.

> Build something people want, have a co-founder... I don't necessarily need to learn those lessons on my own, yet understanding them gives me a vast advantage over someone who doesn't.

Really? "Build something people want" is a lesson? It's a self-evident and self-referential proposition. And the advice to have a co-founder is a silly proposition that's probably wrong more often than it's right. Bill Gates because successful only after getting rid of his co-founder. Steve Jobs because successful only after marginalizing his co-founder. Steve Zuckerberg became successful only after cheating his co-founders. Elon Musk because successful partly by avoiding the advice to have a co-founder.

You don't need the useless advice of sages, you need life experience.

[coralreef]

I'm sorry, but I still don't follow where you're trying to go with this. You don't strike me as someone who is particularly well informed with the modern startup, or the principles of turning an idea into a business.

If you were, you'd know that cofounders are important because building a business is difficult, and going the path with a partner has numerous tangible benefits. You'd also know about the pitfalls that kill startups, things people believe to be important but are not, and may get in the way of "building something people want". It is not useless advice, its actually quite good advice that can save you a lot of time and energy. That's why I don't dismiss it, I seek it.

[lutusp]

> I'm sorry, but I still don't follow where you're trying to go with this.

You don't understand what I mean when I say there are no secrets of the winners? That success is what success does? How is that either difficult to grasp or in any way controversial?

> You don't strike me as someone who is particularly well informed with the modern startup, or the principles of turning an idea into a business.

So the fact that I have been a successful software developer for decades doesn't count? That, as one example, I turned my idea for a word processor into a product that became a worldwide best-seller doesn't count? You need to show a little respect, given that you're presuming to pontificate about something you've never accomplished, to someone who has.

> If you were, you'd know that cofounders are important ...

You know what? Thinking is important. A respect for evidence is important. Your belief in the value of co-founders is falsified by the history of successful businesses, and I already provided a list of obvious examples where co-founders only got in the way.

> ... going the path with a partner has numerous tangible benefits.

I guess that would explain why the most successful companies were started by individuals, or teams consisting of a leader and followers (which contradicts the meaning of "co-founder").

> You'd also know about the pitfalls that kill startups, things people believe to be important but are not ...

Like believing there are surefire rules for successful startups? The thesis that there is a winning formula is as true in business as it is in war -- it's proven false over and over again. In business and war, whatever strategy you choose, your enemy will adapt to it, which means you have to ... wait for it ... think original thoughts, thoughts that by definition aren't on a list of surefire ways to succeed. Thoughts your adversaries won't anticipate.

> It is not useless advice ...

It is useless advice simply because it's out there -- everyone has it. What you need is not more canned formulas for success, but more life experience and less respect for formulaic "solutions".

"When we started out, I had six rules and no children. Now I have six children and no rules."

> That's why I don't dismiss it, I seek it.

And eventually you will stop wasting your time trying to find the magic potion.

But, contrary to what you say, your writing so far only proves that you are incredibly rigid in your thinking, incapable of hearing anyone's advice, and you already have your mind made up about what constitutes a successful business strategy. You are neither flexible nor open to new ideas. You can't be bothered to listen to the advice of people who've had successes you can only dream of.

[coralreef]

This has gotten too personal and no longer has any substance. If you want to reply to get the last word go ahead, but I won't be replying to you any further.

If you presented any worthwhile ideas, I could discuss them. But all you've presented is that success is unmeasurable chaos and therefore any discussion is pointless and awash.

You have such a strong disposition, you even call it magic potions and canned formulas. Your last paragraph describes you as much as me, think about that.

[lutusp]

> If you presented any worthwhile ideas, I could discuss them.

Translation: "In my search for surefire rules to success, I am going to avoid any advice from successful people." Sadly noted.

> But all you've presented is that success is unmeasurable chaos ...

And? That's correct. The only problem is that you have the modern equivalent of a religious outlook, i.e. there are rules that, if followed, assure success. It's false, but you can't accept that.

The fact that life is unmeasurable chaos doesn't mean people can't be successful. Those who are successful accept life as it is, not as they would like it to be.

> You have such a strong disposition ...

Just like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, an a thousand other successful people. But you have a belief in authority, in the power of rules, so you don't need to learn anything from successful people. Dream on, pilgrim.

[dvt]

lutusp is the only sage I need :)