Published Writing as Immutable Code
Insight from Programming and Writing by antirez
"I believe the most sharp difference between writing and programming is that, once written, edited and finalized, a novel remains immutable, mostly. There are several cases of writers returning on their novels after several years, publishing a bug fixed version of it, but this is rare and, even when happens, a one-shot process. Code evolves over time, is targeted by an endless stream of changes, often performed by multiple people. This simple fact has profound effects on the two processes: programmers often believe that the first version of a system can be quite imperfect; after all there will be time to make improvements. On the other hand writers know they have a single bullet for every novel, to the point that writing prose is mostly the act of rewriting. Rewriting sentences, whole chapters, dialogues that sound fake, sometimes two, three, or even ten times.
I believe programming, in this regard, can learn something from writing: when writing the first core of a new system, when the original creator is still alone, isolated, able to do anything, she should pretend that this first core is her only bullet. During the genesis of the system she should rewrite this primitive kernel again and again, in order to find the best possible design. My hypothesis is that this initial design will greatly inform what will happen later: growing organically something that has a good initial structure will result in a better system, even after years of distance from the original creation, and even if the original core was just a tiny faction of the future mass the system would eventually assume."
Writing as the first core or kernel of a new system: if the initial structure and frame are correct, the system naturally evolves in the right direction from there. Will probably include this insight in the piece I'm currently writing around why writing might be the most valuable core skill for any business role.
The problem with quantifying too early
“New ideas are fragile. Since they originate in the messy madness of intuition and the fringes of society, they don’t carry the crisp edges that rational critics look for.”
Sometimes, our subconscious may perceive patterns and structural similarities that our rational brain cannot articulate or comprehend fully yet. But some of the major discoveries in the world were made as a result of applying metaphorical or aesthetic thinking.
The discovery of the structure of Benzene is one example. Richard Feynman piddling around with the wobbling plate is another. And I'm sure if you were to look, you would find many many more examples of people coming upon ideas that weren't strictly rational or quantitative, but purely aesthetic. They fit a pattern. And they led to many significant discoveries.
So, don't be too quick to jump to quantifying ideas or putting numbers on them or categorizing them into boxes. You have to let simplicity organically emerge from complexity instead of forcing simplicity and killing a potentially groundbreaking idea in the bud.
"Sevens kill companies."
Eric Vishria had a framework at Loudcloud when they were hiring. They would interview people and they would rate someone on a scale of one to 10. You had to be an eight, nine, or 10 to be hired.
The thesis was that sevens kill companies.
What that means is that when someone has a four, you just know they're not doing the job, they're not up for it, so you can take them out of the system. But the problem with a seven is that you don't get to that point, because that person will have glimmers of being able to do the job, maybe they'll be a super cultural carrier. They'll have some redeeming qualities.
But because they have those things, two things happen.
One, there's an opportunity cost of that seat. When someone that's a seven is holding the seat, it means you don't have a nine having that seat.
Two is that the execution of a team is often brought down by the weakest link. An entire team can be brought down by that seven.
Hmmm...
Seeing a business as an equation
In Patrick O'Shaughnessy's conversation with Carl Kawaja of Capital Group, Carl talks about reducing a business to a crisp equation to understand what could potentially make or break the business.
Carl: Well, I'll start with simplicity. I find do better as an investor in businesses that I understand. I like businesses that I understand and I like it when I can explain to myself a couple of the key metrics of the company. like it when people can kind of lay it out for me and say, for example, was looking just coincidentally at another Brazilian company the other day. This is a soybean crush company called Bunge.
Our analyst said to me, well, here's how you think about their business. He said a bushel of soybeans weigh 60 pounds, and when you crush it, it produces 44 pounds of soybean meal and 11 pounds of soybean oil, and think four pounds of hols and a pound of waste or something like that. Hopefully that adds up to 60. Soybean oil sells for about 60 or 70 cents, soybean meal I think goes for $450 a ton, and I think there are 2000 pounds and the ton so that's 22 cents or so, 23 cents a pound.
And in my simple mind, I can say, okay, how much meal and oil does this produce? What is the revenue for that? What is the cost of a bushel of soybeans? Which I think is 12 or 13 bucks, and then do the math and figure out how they make money.
And so I like being able to explain to myself on a business, here are the simple metrics that drive it. So when I go visit them and they say, oh gosh, the price of soybean oil has fallen from 70 cents to 15 cents, it means something to me and I can quickly do the math and understand it. And I also like understanding the math of why their product works for customers and why it is compelling to customers.
And so I like being able to explain to myself on a business, here are the simple metrics that drive it. So when I go visit them and they say, oh gosh, the price of soybean oil has fallen from 70 cents to 15 cents, it means something to me and I can quickly do the math and understand it. And I also like understanding the math of why their product works for customers and why it is compelling to customers.
Patrick: [00:23:19] Yep. It's basically like can I build a simple equation for this business, and then go work on the variables and try to figure out what might drive success or failure.
Often, you can judge a founder's clarity about the business seeing how easily they can dimensionally reduce it to a simple explanation. Can they compress what their business does and what makes it tick in a few core elements that can maximally explain it?
People fairly push back that companies are intrinsically messy and cannot be compressed in this way, because it hints at the founder's lack of clarity around what their business does. And it also makes it difficult for the business to market itself effectively to outsiders. This of course doesn't apply to very technically challenging B2B businesses with a lot of important nuance, but it does apply to all B2C businesses where the consumer is a layperson.
As a founder, nobody is going to understand the full nuance of your company like you will. And due to this, you will repeatedly underestimate the degree to which your products are complex and opaque to outsiders.
Seeing your business like a simple equation not only helps you identify the key variables that make or break your business, but it also helps you design an effective marketing pitch for your company.
Have any interesting ideas?
Do send them in to us and we will cover them in our essays, with due credit of course. Till then, do share Stoa Daily with your friends if you find the value. Help us spread the word.
