- Programmer happiness is the most important factor in making quality software
- “Code is meant to be read by humans first and computers only secondarily — in order to write software that addresses real human needs we need to approach the problem of software development from a more human perspective…Performance is cheap. On the other hand, creating, customizing, and maintaining huge (and hugely complex) bases of inscrutable software code is very expensive. There is increasing sentiment in the software world that we should be happy to take performance hits if it means the process of software development can me made more sustainable, pleasant, and simple.”
- The advantages of closing a few doors
- ”’Predictably Irrational’ is an entertaining look at human foibles like the penchant for keeping too many options open…In a series of experiments, hundreds of students could not bear to let their options vanish, even though it was obviously a dumb strategy.”
- Video: "How to Speak"
- “In this skillful lecture, Professor Patrick Winston of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology offers tips on how to give an effective talk, cleverly illustrating his suggestions by using them himself. He emphasizes how to start a lecture, cycling in on the material, using verbal punctuation to indicate transitions, describing ‘near misses’ that strengthen the intended concept, and asking questions. He also talks about using the blackboard, overhead projections, props, and ‘how to stop.’”
- The power of micro-specialization
- “Become the expert in what you do. Which means micro-specialization. Who is the single-best agent for condos in your zip code? Or for single family homes for large families? Who is the one and the only best person to turn to if you’re looking for investment property in this part of town? As I wrote in The Dip, you’re either the best in the world (where ‘world’ can be a tiny slice of the environment) or you’re invisible. This means being Draconian in your choices. No, you can’t also do a little of this or a little of that. Best in your world means burning your other bridges and obsessing.”
- Q&A with graphics director for The NY Times
- Steve Duenes, graphics director for The Times, is answering reader questions.
- “Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business”
- “The word is externalities, a concept that holds that money is not the only scarcity in the world. Chief among the others are your time and respect, two factors that we’ve always known about but have only recently been able to measure properly…There is, presumably, a limited supply of reputation and attention in the world at any point in time. These are the new scarcities — and the world of free exists mostly to acquire these valuable assets for the sake of a business model to be identified later. Free shifts the economy from a focus on only that which can be quantified in dollars and cents to a more realistic accounting of all the things we truly value today.”
- Top 10 Mistakes in High Tech Marketing
- “Why do so many high tech companies and products fail? We’ve had the opportunity to evaluate the management practices of hundreds of high tech companies and here are the primary reasons…”
- Managing product development: “Are your defects like potholes?”
- “Defects, especially big ones, slow down other development or fixes. So, what do you do? If you have a ton of defects, I would choose a one-week timebox, and work on fixing them. For me, fixing means developing a fix along with a unit test (or two or three), getting some peer review, and then checking it in so the developer can do some around-the-area testing before system test. I don’t care if the developers write the unit test first, I just care that they write some unit tests. Although, if you’ve got defects, you’ve got the makings of a bunch of great unit tests. I would not allow any development in this timebox, just fixing and checking the fixes in a variety of ways.”
- How spiderwebs work
- “An orb-spinning spider puts its elegant traps together pretty quickly, proceeding easily from step to step according to the instruction manual preprogrammed into its brain. The diagram below shows the major steps.”
Geoff B
on 29 Feb 08I may disagree a bit with the part about micro-specialization: “No, you can’t also do a little of this or a little of that. Best in your world means burning your other bridges and obsessing…”
I may be misinterpreting this, but I think that having 2, 3, or 4 skillsets can be exactly what does set you apart. For instance, you may be a good programmer. You could be a good programmer who also understands differential equations. You could ge a good programmer who understands differential equations and capital markets. In this case, you’ve become “micro-specialized” by broadening, rather than narrowing, your focus. Very few of us can be the best at one thing, but we may be able to become very good at three or more things…
I’m borrowing from Scott Adams’s throughts here http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/career-advice.html
Meh
on 29 Feb 08Have to agree with Geoff B here. Another aspect is that Seth purposely doesn’t think about the question of what happens if someone else moves in on your micro-niche:
- There may not be enough business for the both of you. - If you’re the loser, you might have to spend a lot more time retraining for a new niche. - Even if you’re the winner, if the competition is close the fight could seriously damage the economics of your business. And being so specialised you have no other income options to back it up.
Finally, of course, 90% of “field localised” innovations occur when people find something good in another field and apply it to their own. Micro-specialisation would seem to cut off your ability to participate in that process.
Rimantas
on 01 Mar 08I am about to drop Seth Godin from my blogroll. His decission to write a post a day was no good. Not having anything new to say does not help either. And I am pretty tired of plugs for his S. service. I am not sure why am I still reading him, waiting for the miracle?
David
on 01 Mar 08Hello Rimantas,
Thank you for the link to “How to Speak”. Truly outstanding.
Scott Magdalein
on 01 Mar 08To come to Seth’s defense, the purpose of micro-specialization is to make yourself a ‘specialist.’ Specialists aren’t jacks-of-all-trades. They do one thing and they do it better than anyone else. Just being a good programmer and limiting yourself to that field isn’t micro-specialization. Being a good programmer and making yourself the expert in building for sites that work for landscapers is micro-specialization. It’s taking your broad field and creating a pinpoint usefulness for it. You’ll become indispensable to landscapers looking to gain more clients on the web.
Geoff B
on 02 Mar 08I may have considered Seth’s definition of “micro-specialization” too narrowly. He could respond that becoming a good programmer with knowledge of PDEs and capital markets is precisely what he means by micro-specialization.
That said, I think a lot of creativity (and specialization) comes from learning and reading broadly. You may be unaware of the possibility of a niche without broadening your horizons to become aware of that niche.
Personally, I read (and try) a lot of different techniques in quant programming. I’m not a big proponent of “just in time” learning, because I won’t be aware of where to look and what to learn if I don’t aquire breadth.
I don’t want to misconstrue Seth’s argument. He could reasonably say that everything I’ve described here is consistent with his comments about micro-specialization.
David Lewis
on 03 Mar 08Sorry to disagree, but the lecture by Winston is really terrible—boring, poorly designed and delivered, and guaranteed to (a) put the audience to sleep; (b) teach you how to put your audience to sleep. Much better to take some cues from another MIT prof, namely Edward Tufte.
Here’s one set of tips - invert! Don’t, as Winston does - follow the classical model of (a) here’s what I am going to say; (b) say it; (c) that’s what I said. Guaranteed boredom! Here are some ways out…
Start with an example. Start with the punchline and then ask the audience to think about how you're going to get there. Start with a problem, vividly stated, so the audience gets really uncomfortable in a receptive way. In other words, grab attention, create tension (not anxiety -- big difference), get the audience on the edge of their seats right away.Above all, do not, as Winston says, assume that 20% of your audience will be fogged at any point, so you have to repeat things three times, thus being sure to bore 80% of your audience most of the time. Don’t play to the lowest common denominator. Wake ‘em up… so effectively that if anyone is still fogged, then there is little hope for them,a nd you can concentrate on the 90% who are awake.
I think you could make a good lecture on how to lecture by inverting almost everything Winston says or does.
My $000.02.
This discussion is closed.