every prolific creator i've seen in practice has been a far more indulgent consumer than the average person. that, and in the chicken and egg of inspiration and production, i've found that production is usually wrung out of a surplus of inspiration.
it genuinely surprises me how popular and intuitive this "create more than you consume" meme is
Proper creators don't need to be reminded to create. I think this meme is targeting everyone else - anything that gets them to create more is OK, whether the meme is 100% accurate or not.
The article says Spending hours watching cooking shows won’t make you a better cook—cooking will. I disagree - there has to be some kind of give and take. You don't want to isolate yourself and try to reinvent the wheel in terms of cooking. On the other hand, you can consume cooking media, or food, for entertainment or for entertainment and to learn/get new ideas.
To put it another way, I'm not going to just figure out PowerShell if you give me an ISE and a few weeks. Give me an ISE a few weeks, stack exchange, Microsoft documentation, etc. and I will.
>The article says Spending hours watching cooking shows won’t make you a better cook—cooking will. I disagree - there has to be some kind of give and take.
There's definitely a balance, and as you identify I think the point is to target the extreme that will spend hundreds of hours on cooking videos and no time actually coooking for themselves. At that point it's consumption for consumptions sake than as a means to progress oneself.
But sure, you need to consume to learn as well. No one should go into a terminal and expect to just know all the hundreds of built-in commands (let alone package managers to grab millions more). A manual traditionally doesn't help identify what commands are needed to start gaining proficiency either. That's what courses/tutorials excel in, to make you better at reading those man pages later on after practice with some fundamentals.
I think that statement is spot on. To draw a parallel, I see people spend hours and hours watching programming videos, and at the end they can't do a thing on their own.
You should spend more time doing the thing than you spend watching videos about the thing. Or at least do the thing regularly. Doesn't mean videos can't help, but I'm pretty sure they feel like they help a lot more than they actually do.
I think the "I've seen" is the key part of your comment. This article is about creating for yourself, not even for consumption by others. It makes sense that you've seen people who create that are also big consumers, because you've seen people who create for consumers. Other creative people may not be so obvious.
> This article is about creating for yourself, not even for consumption by others.
Probably about 75% of everything I create, I create for myself. Nobody else is ever likely to see any of it. The act of creating is its own reward (being able to have and use the thing is a reward as well, of course), and I've found that sharing my creations comes with an inherent cost in terms of time: answering questions, support, or even just people wanting to talk about the thing.
Also, the level of polish I need to put into a thing in order to feel OK about sharing it will easily double the amount of time it will take to create it.
It gets expensive. As a result, I only share those things that I deem important to share.
Well, if you spend 8 hours creating something meaningful… like working on your startup, building a deck for your backyard, creating some art, or preparing a nice meal… it is quite intuitive that you will feel much more content and self-satisfied than if you had spent 8 hours flicking through Instagram and TikTok, binge watching TV, and ordering food for delivery.
So I guess it depends on what you mean by “create” and “consume,” and how you measure them.
>every prolific creator i've seen in practice has been a far more indulgent consumer than the average person
You'd be surprised. It's a common cliche in musician interviews for example that they don't listen to other music for large stretches of time.
Authors do read more than the average person, but the average person wouldn't read to save their life (the average american reads like 1 book per year according to stats I've seen)
I write quite a lot (finishing my 9th book by now), but I read orders of magnitude more. Perhaps 100 times as much, roughly, when considering my younger years, when I didn't write at all and only read voraciously.
Seeing a lot of people say that a rewrite is a terrible idea, but (as someone who doesn’t understand why) I’d love to hear a more fleshed out explanation re: why exactly that’d be a bad idea.
Rewrites frequently fail or go massively over budget/schedule.
It can be difficult to fully replicate the existing system and there are frequently important but subtle reasons why the existing system has the architecture it does.
To the extent that one can make modular changes and address the most-important pain-points, one probably should.
Sometimes a complete rewrite is a better choice, but if embarking on that path, a fail-fast attempt at an MVP might be the right style to do so. If the MVP crushes the existing system in performance/benefits, then subsequent iterative development may yield a viable re-written replacement system.
having seen several rewrite attempts in my career, none of which were fully successful, here are some thoughts:
- The ultimate reason: it will take too long and be over budget. The business will (rightfully) ask why should they invest x amount of capital just to get essentially the same feature set back. Businesses do not care about whats under the hood.
And here is why:
- the rewriter team usually does not fully understand edge/corner cases that the current mess handles, but obscures it.
- the rewrite inevitably ends up following the same patters that the original did leading to unusual/weird cases
- rewrite teams get too ambitious and attempt to over abstract and over engineer, eventually creating another mess understood by only them
A rewrite is likely to take a lot of time, and if you're not careful, it's easy to end up running two systems rather than one at the end: the new one that doesn't quite do everything, and the old system that still does some important things.
In addition, if you don't change the development conditions, you're likely to end up with a similar mess at the end. Sometimes, code is messy because you didn't know what you were doing when you started and a rewrite could help; but sometimes code is messy because the requirements are messy and change rather a lot --- a rewrite can't help much with that.
That doesn't mean never do a rewrite, but you've got to have a pretty good reason, and it sure helps to have an incremental plan so that you don't end up with two systems and so that you start seeing the fruits of your labor quickly.
> Russia orders people and companies to sell 80% of their revenue in foreign currencies, forcing them to buy the ruble
We have headlines like this running today and HN is still on its anti-crypto kick? Like there still isn't any chance of self-custodied digital bearer assets having any real utility?
Hate to get flamey on here and I hope that's not how this comes off, but at some point it verges on caricature (and I say this as someone who is also disheartened by all the financial grift in crypto).
> Nobody ever had a problem with verifiable receipts when attending concerts or buying a car or eating at a restaurant
Sorry, but spoken like someone who has no idea how the fashion industry operates.
Seriously though, it’s one thing to not like the superficiality of the fashion market, but to deny that NFTs exploit the same demand (for less-gauche proof of wealth) seems wrong.
I think OPs point is NFT style guarantees exist without NFT technology.
Recently I learned folks appraise ‘64 mustangs based on VIN and markings - so they know how close to the “first off the lot” that mustang was. They don’t need a blockchain to do that.
I think there is a valid point to this take - humans don’t need irrefutable cryptographic proof that something has a story attached to it; they just need enough compelling evidence the story attached to an object is true. And the kinds of stories folks value tend to be human stories (this is the crown worn by so and so, this is the finger bone of saint so and so, etc.) which NFTs can’t capture.
The NFT is not about cryptographic proof. It's about creating something that such a story can attach to for digital pieces of art; w/o the token, digital art has no ownable identity.
You indeed do not need a blockchain - the artworld has been doing it using paper certificates for a long time. But these are conceptually the same as an NFT, just accessible and tradable.
- Custom rules to ignore songs on random selection
- Custom rules to select equalizer per song
- Folder based navigation
- Smart Folder based playlists
- Uploading your music to the cloud and streaming them as any other song
Nails my reasoning for having stuck to it all this time as well. way easier to include my own (un-published) music, mixtapes/etc that never made it to streaming but that I have mp3s for, album art that I want to swap out, etc.
I do fear that these might all be incidental features and they eventually re-orient to mimic Spotify's approach more closely.
I'm also glad that on Windows I haven't (yet?) been subjected to the splitting up of iTunes into separate music and podcast apps, because I've manually reclassified my collection of various radio comedy show episodes as podcasts in iTunes in order to get the listened/not listened and listening position tracking [1], and from a quick search it seems that on a Mac this is no longer as easily possible with the new Podcast app.
[1] Yes, the latter can be enabled for any track in iTunes, but unfortunately it doesn't work with the solution I'm using for syncing my library to an Android phone, plus I also want the listened/not listened display, which is definitively a Podcast-only feature anyway.
It's because it's somewhat of a stretch to draw what he did to the actual history of the NFT ecosystem in crypto (and no one in crypto considers him a "co-creator" of NFTs).
