Postshelf - Colin Bethea

Only a fool learns from his own mistakes.

Otto von Bismarck

Preface

Here, we have a long list of short-form content that I like or find useful. I think blog posts and essays are often actually a better medium for insights than longer non-fiction texts. They force the writer to have absolute clarity in their delivery, as the amount of space they can take up is much smaller. As a result, they don't have the usual fluff and boilerplate of a book. I'm not sure which comes first: the clarity of thought, or the format chosen by the author.

I've attempted to distill the key takeaways I had for each piece. Believe it or not, I have actually read all of these (and I still would avoid mentioning them at a house party).

Articles

Reality has a surprising amount of detail

If you wish to not get stuck, seek to perceive what you have not yet perceived.

We filter out a lot of complexity day-to-day. During our life, we observe objects that appear deceptively simple, but would require a lot of work - the complexity of which we don't truly understand unless we've built that object ourselves.
There are lots of "snags" in completing commonplace tasks, as the author notes. These difficulties are often not visible to the outside observer, and can be hand-waved away. I think the most poignant real-world example of this I see all the time is the product executive seeing something as "easy to build" because of their lack of technical context.
The only two times any can be simple are: before you learn about it (or how to do it), and after you've mastered it. The gradiations in between are often not simple.
Important details in any endeavor are often not obvious, but still important nonetheless. This begs the question: how can you train yourself to better identify and manage complex details in what you are doing? If you can identify these details, can you evaluate them objectively? I think both are difficult, but my hunch is: the first is only trainable through tacit experience, and the second requires some solid foundations or theory in your area of competence.
In the vein of "if you have hammer, everything looks a nail", people notice different details from you. I think the extrapolation you could make here is that things like conflict and dissent (assuming nobody is malicious) are rooted in the differences of people's perceptions. The most collaborative people are more than just "open" to being wrong, they proactively look for and compare details. Consensus is an intentional process of detail-finding and comparisons, rather than an argument to be made (arguing is for debate club, nerd). The devil is always in the details.
Over time, crucial details for everyday tasks become invisible. It's easy to get stuck in your ways. All details, whether you've noticed them or not, are invisible to you (either by acclimation, or ignorance).

Status as a service

Social capital is a leading indicator of financial capital. Companies like Facebook have long prioritized social capital and postponed focus on higher revenues and profitability.
These networks (whether it's Facebook or Soho House) always run into a cold-start problem: why did the first people stay when there was nobody else around? The answer is probably some sort of utility beyond just the network itself.

High bit-rate people