Would you mind sharing an example of "Working on something meaningful that pushes at the edge of my self actualization"? In my experience, work, even when meaningful, is quite separate from self actualization. I'm interested to hear how you're combining them.
I am approaching 40 and in two weeks I will begin clowning lessons with a Cirque du Soleil clown. I am thrilled.
So why clown as a discipline? Something deeply misunderstood and that probably lowers my social status with people who don’t understand it? Something with zero career utility? Because to me it represents extreme vulnerability.
I’m a pretty dignified person. A lot of poise. Goofy, but restrained. If I can debase myself in front of an audience in order to win a laugh then I believe I can do anything.
If I can (figuratively) hang my ass out for all to see then I can move with confidence. If I can blow past my natural inclination to save face, or have the answers. If I can discard the emotional hangups that make me feel embarrassed then I can be the person who I (and I suspect a great number of us) want to be deep down.
I want to (constructively) tear down everything inside of me that restrains me and discover who I can really be.
Ah, thanks for chiming in with your inspiring anecdote. I realize that perhaps I interpreted "working on" as pertaining to career work, rather than just investment of effort.
Your example of clowning shows something that requires real work and, as you laid out, hopefully does wonders to improving confidence, humility, humor, and charm. I wish you the best with that! And happy early birthday. :)
I took an acting class in college and found it remarkably challenging, but valuable, to tear down those emotional restraints. I should get back into it, it’s a skill that needs to be regularly practiced. I wish you luck and I hope it’s a valuable experience for you!
> In my experience, work, even when meaningful, is quite separate from self actualization.
I guess it depends on your temperament - I am very very high in industriousness and moderately high in curiosity, but the industriousness overrides the fragmentation of attention that normally comes with high curiosity individuals.
2 years ago my hobby project turned into a company, and now I run that, so for me I can find self actualisation through work, but I imagine if I was a different temperment, where work didn't overlap so much, it would be harder for that type of person.
And Google maps does not show: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, House of Ill-repute? And Mark Zukerburd telling everyone he is going to spend $600 billion on AI in the next five years? Google maps will make itself insignificant. ( see my review of the North Atlantic ).
Exactly. Being a good CEO means reading the body language of your programmers so you can tell when they need support. It means communicating competence to investors and customers. It means making complex decisions with incomplete input, a lot of the time deep intuitions are required. It means having the good sense of judgement.
Part of the time you are tyrant, part of the time you are parent, part of the time you are psychologist, mentor, master, healer, empath, judge and jury, and the most important part : is knowing that ALL of this is REQUIRED to be human actions and a little text input spitting out (even under ideal conditions - excellent) quality text to the above is definitely not going to work because every good CEO knows that its 50% the message you deliver, and 50% the delivery that matters.
And also being a technical founder with 20 years coding experience, I dont think AI can replace programmers for a set of different but equally valid reasons.
I know this is mostly true at huge companies, but having spent my career at various "small" corporations, with maybe a few thousand employees total (and only ~50 of which were in IT). I was always surprised when the CEO knew names of people like me, the lowly developer 5 layers below them on the org chart, but beyond that, remembered the last conversation we had, or an interest we might have shared (golf, hiking, travel, etc.).
Even as a temporary consultant, at a company for only a couple of months, I remember seeing the CEO walk the hallway, greeting every single person on the way between a meeting room and the bathroom. I can barely remember my family member's names, or the last thing we talked about, let alone have the memory space for all that information to seem kind and courteous to "low level" employees.
In my entire career, I've never worked at a behemoth-sized company, though, so my experience has been much more "intimate" environments, and primarily in consulting firms or satellite offices away from the main HQ (even by only a couple blocks some times). So everyone in the office knew each other.
I worked at a 10,000 person company ~15y ago. I was a lowly employee at the time; just a run of the mill Research Analyst writing code in SAS. I got on the elevator w/the CEO, said hello, and he knew exactly who I was and what I did.
Two important grounding items for me when I went into management and my career accelerated:
1. Take the worst boss I ever had (coincidentally at the same company) and make sure that I do the exact opposite of everything they did when leading others.
2. Mirror the actions of that CEO and make sure I remember every single person and what they did; it leaves a lasting impression on people.
A good CEO according to the market, which is what counts in the US, is one that drives up the valuation of a company and increases profit in a mature company. It has nothing to do with personal interaction as most of us would prefer.
Well then you and I differ - I certainly dont turn to the market to define what is good, I guess thats what happens when you worship money, or are operating on the engineers fallacy where you ignore things that are hard to quantify numerically (e.g. empathy)
I am firmly realistic on the overhyped nature of AI, but which discoveries in the last 100 years are not "a composition of solutions humans have developed and documented elsewhere" ?
Is that basically every new discovery? And under the strictest definition of novel and NOT falling into your composition of previous solutions what is that standard of proof to beat your criteria? Is a novel discovery not allowed to use English but must invent their own language? Must they invent their own math - these are hyperbole for illustration but I think its not far from that before you could just argue anything based off it is a composition of existing ideas
I'm not convinced that one-shotting things is anything other than a vanity-metric.
Maybe in the distant future where quickly building a visualisation to help explain some concept would be valuable to one shot quickly - but "One shotting an app" is ridiculous because app development (or any development) is never "build it and then finish" but is an interative process, testing feedback, user feedback, and even app-creator communication ambiguity means being able to "one shot an app" is pretty worthless
Model routers - send all of your data through a third party who totally swears not to peek at it.
If youre doing anything high value (advanced research, classified work, high value industrial research, health data) then sending your data through a third party like that is insane.
Best option by what metric? For which enterprises. I say this having worked at an “enterprise” where this was not a good option. For (lack of) talent/expertise, budget, infrastructure, and actual value relative to the eventual bottom line.
Still, to get results from that you need someone who can create a decent finetune. That might not be realistic, but it very well could be realistic to have someone optimize some prompts and curate a knowledge base. Point is, its a possibility but “best” depends on the nuances of reality.
reply