Paul Graham

Anyone can tell people to do what makes them happy or leave their dissatisfying job. These exhortations have become platitudes. If you want to help people find fulfillment, you need to move beyond the low hanging fruit of personal development advice. You need to do work. You need to talk to people and find out why they stay in their jobs. Then you need to address those concerns.

The exhortation to "do what makes you happy" has been around for a long time, yet there are still people in dissatisfying jobs. Is offering another formulation of the same message going to make a difference? If your audience doesn't respond to your message, you work on your message, you don't just repeat it with subtle variations.

If you want to see someone who is doing work in this field and saying something new, read http://www.unicornfree.com/ or http://www.paulgraham.com/. There is simply no comparison between the kind of practical, "actionable" advice Amy Hoy and Paul Graham are offering and the platitudes presented in this post.

Specifically, read http://www.paulgraham.com/love.html which almost exactly echoes what I just said (despite reading it only after making this post): "We've got it down to four words: 'Do what you love.' But it's not enough just to tell people that. Doing what you love is complicated."

>Email is run just like this and it has plenty of reach.

The "reach" in gp's context is "audience reach". A measure of "audience size" in a broadcast type of medium. It doesn't mean reach in a technical sense like "reachable ip address or DNS resolution".

Email is more point-to-point and 1-to-1 rather than 1-to-many. Yes, the concept of "mailing lists" could arguably be described as "broadcast" but it requires explicit subscriptions and is not the same "reach" as Twitter tweets acting as global "billboards".

E.g. this HN site often has user-submitted Twitter tweets on the front page. In contrast, it's very rare to have a mailing list mirror post to HN. The reach is not the same. (E.g. last week, the thread on front page about "Adobe removing Pantone colors" was referencing a Twitter post.)

Another example related to HN... the creator of this site, Paul Graham, created a Twitter account in 2010 (https://twitter.com/paulg). It has 1.5 million followers. Clearly, the Twitter platform gives him exposure that his existing email address (and his web blog at http://www.paulgraham.com, and this HN site ycombinator.com) -- does not.

Not to be that guy but PG has a great one on this: https://paulgraham.com/love.html

And here's another great one about how ease, and not grind, arguably led to some of the biggest discoveries ever, like General Relativity: https://www.strangeloopcanon.com/p/on-thinkers-and-doers

I am currently doing a masters degree at Carnegie Mellon and I gotta be honest, this place is so dehumanizing for the exact reasons discussed in the link. It's just a grind pit here. And its harder to swallow this pill when you realize that university campuses are one of the few remaining venues well suited for exploring new ideas and having intellectual serendipity. When you're in a job, you can't easily just find a biology expert or economics expert and chat with them. When students are assaulted with work, they lose the ability to take advantage of that unique quality of the university environment.

This is a classic debate in programming, literally:

2001: "Beating the Averages" (Paul Graham) [1]

2006: "Can Your Programming Language Do This?" (Joel Spolsky) [2]

Both of these articles argue for the thesis that programmers that have been deprived of certain language features often argue that they don't need those features since they are already comfortable working around the lack of said features.

It's a fancy way of arguing: you don't know what you're missing because you've never had it. Or, don't knock it until you try it.

Consider, is your argument a) I've never used it and don't see a need for it, or b) I've used it before and didn't get any benefit?

1. https://paulgraham.com/avg.html?viewfullsite=1

2. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/08/01/can-your-programming-language-do-this/

The act of writing something like this can be a way of helping yourself do it. I'm not sure that's his intent, or not, but I like the idea of writing at an intermediate stage. Should he wait until his behavior is perfect before sharing his experience? If so it might never get written. There is a generosity in talking about your own flaws, it can help people who are working through their own flaws as well.

Paul Graham is among those who have written about how putting thoughts into words tends to change those thoughts: "You can know a great deal about something without writing about it. Can you ever know so much that you wouldn't learn more from trying to explain what you know? I don't think so." https://paulgraham.com/words.html

those are all really great resources. i’d also mention pg’s personal site (http://paulgraham.com) as well. it’s not really a blog, but his essay’s provide a level of depth that’s often lacking from many of the more active blogs

and steve blank’s site (mentioned above) also has an incredibly long and comprehensive list of resources for new entrepreneurs including many other blogs worth checking-out as well

i’ll also throw out one more, "Bloomberg Businessweek: The New Entrepreneur"
(http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/the-new-entrepreneur)
it’s (obviously, given the name) a news blog, but i find they cover a lot of interesting topics less frequently touched-on by the major business/tech sites out there