Business Insider openly admitting that they don’t care (or check) whether what they’re publishing is true or not because they said “reportedly” in the headline
News organization in which SBF is a major shareholder claims that SBF owns $100 million of Twitter.
Owner of Twitter says this isn’t true.
Headline: “SBF is reportedly a shareholder in Twitter.”
Zero attempt to actually determine what is accurate.
The Verge did 100% the same thing to us.
A student told them we plagiarized our curriculum from Medium.
Turns out someone had stolen and republished our curriculum on Medium.
We showed that clearly, with time stamps.
What was published? “Students claim curriculum was stolen.”
Here’s a screenshot of the fact-check document where we clearly showed that what had happened.
Then what was published.
Note the “seemed to” used to publish something the journalist knew was 100% false.
Then a quote that doubles down on the lie to make it seem more egregious.
Even more fun:
The Verge went through our #mentalhealth Slack channel, contacted every student who had ever mentioned suicidal ideation, noted *could* mention that with names in their report, but implied they could provide anonymity if they’d speak out against us.
Journalism!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
You do a critical task. It takes 1/8 of your time, and is easy and cheap to hire for. So you hire someone to do the task.
That person does that task well. Great hire!
In fact that person is so smart and resourceful that they start doing two other tasks that, while not critical, are great. What an awesome hire!
Add those two great things to the list of things we do!
Except unknowingly, you just went from one task that takes 1/8 of a person’s time to three tasks that are a full-time job plus 1/8 of a person to manage them.
And you can’t eliminate that role, that person does three important tasks!
Someone referenced the notion that you can't work productively for more than 5 hours/day, and I realized I had always heard that but had no idea what the notion came from.
Googling around you find and endless number of sites linking to each other, but eventually found the study.
Stanford researchers measured hours worked vs. productivity in a bunch of easily measurable (generally manual labor) jobs.
Easy to measure hours worked vs. amount of output.
I was surprised to see the results were... pretty much linear?
They take a bunch of other swipes at the data, but the "research" that everyone references seems to stem from this: a least-squared estimate in which hours are expressed as a quadratic.
Some of the most frustrating times to me as a founder were budgeting, goal setting, and headcount planning, because incentives shift.
By default people ask for maximum team size, set “goals” they’ll hit automatically, and you end up planning for failure.
What I’ve seen work:
1. First, actually optimize for *net income,* (profit), not just revenue.
Yes, some VCs/analysts don’t consider the bulk of your team “COGS,” say you have 99% gross margin, and focus 100% on revenue.
But operationally that’s a fantasy.
You have to care about revenue - cost.
2. Start with long-term vision for each team, *then* goal setting (including hard monthly numbers teams sign up for), *then* assign budget/headcount to hit those.
Marrying these processes means you get resources according to the value you’ll create, not how hard you fight.