5 ms·

A = F/m, So Keep Your Foot on the Gas

96 points by mrshoe 17y ago

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
Inaccurate, whimsical, but a good analogy to explain the "overnight success" story to non-scientists. I like it.
- swombat 17y ago
  As a former physicist, I find it hard to ignore just how inaccurate the graph is...
  - RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
    I can understand that, and largely I feel the same. But over the past 20 years since completing my PhD I've learned on occasion to let go of the details and look to the underlying point. Sometimes, indeed, often, the example or the calculations are fundamentally wrong, but the point is sound. I've found I've learned a lot after having learned to look beyond the specifics of a given example. It doesn't suit everyone, it doesn't work for everyone, and I wouldn't claim that everyone should do it. It works for me.
obsaysditto 17y ago
If only the magical engine was always constant.
- francoisdevlin 17y ago
  And the box never gets heavier.
  - _delirium 17y ago
    And the speed of light isn't finite...
simon_ 17y ago
Acceleration = F/m implies Position = F/2m(t^2) + k1(t) + k2 That's quadratic, but definitely not exponential, and doesn't really look like the curve he drew. I know the guy's argument doesn't really depend on the shape of the curve, but it's a pet peeve of mine that exponential growth is always presented in an inaccurate way. EDIT: fixed embarrassing calculus error
- ygd_coder 17y ago
  Actually: x = 1/2 * a * t^2 + v0 * t + x0
  - simon_ 17y ago
    doh, fixed.
- jedbrown 17y ago
  The curve doesn't even look exponential since it seems to become infinite at finite time, more like 1/(T-t).
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
ccc3 17y ago
I wonder how far you could extend the analogy. If distance = $ and force = effort, what startup attribute corresponds to mass? Maybe difficulty of the problem, or level of competition.
- nfnaaron 17y ago
  mass = tasks, the ones that need repeating (or you'll stop (making money)) and the ones that have yet to be done (or you'll stop (making money)).
grannyg00se 17y ago
This is often seen with artists who experience apparent overnight success with break out material. When you look them up on wikipedia, you find that they've actually been slugging it out in their industry for many years. Of course that's not always the case, sometimes they really did just get incredibly lucky. But most often, this type of success comes with tenacity, drive, and talent. Not simply talent, and not simply luck. We miss the long starting tail that came before the meteoric rise. Unfortunately some people aren't wise to this and think that their luck is somehow worse than everyone else's.
Freebytes 17y ago
I really disliked this article and found it a complete waste of time to read. On this web site, I would expect this article to lead to something scientific, something related to programming, or perhaps information that would be beneficial to someone starting a business. While off topic content is certainly acceptable at times, this is really pointless to me and contributes nothing. It was not worth reading, and the only reason why I am even responding is to hopefully contribute by having others consider their content before linking worthless content to the site. I cannot really see how it has been rated so highly, and it makes me wonder if I am missing something. It is neither accurate nor useful in any way. It does not even benefit me in a way to get me thinking in a positive manner or to help me generate ideas.
- mrshoe 17y ago
  Hey, author here. I don't usually comment on my own articles on HN, but this comment was one of the more negative ones I've seen here. A lot of us here on Hacker News (formerly Startup News) are working on startups. One of the biggest challenges facing startups is finding the determination to work hard during the long initial period where you might see very few fruits from your labors. Personally, I like to read pg's "How Not to Die" frequently (http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html). It was in this light that I wrote the article. I submitted it to HN and apparently it struck a chord with a lot of readers here, and they upvoted it. Not every article on HN is going to appeal to every reader. Perhaps you're not working on a startup, so this article doesn't really apply to you. Maybe my next one will. Recognize that not all HN readers are in the same situation in life; enjoy the articles that apply directly to your situation, and read the others to give you perspective on the lives of your fellow HNers.
  - pgbovine 17y ago
    agreed ... your blog post tried to convey a very simple and punchy idea, and you didn't make any pretenses about it being 'mathematically accurate' or whatever, so i'm astounded that people have nitpicked on your curves not being accurate or whatever. a piece of presentation advice i've heard for creating graphs and diagrams is that if you don't want people to nitpick on details, make a really crappy low-fidelity sketch so that people don't have an expectation of precision. i once got ripped on because i drew a line that looks like 1 / x^2 to talk about inverse correlation, but people nitpicked on whether it was a power law, 1/x, whether the integral converges, etc., which was totally irrelevant to my argument. if i had made a crappy hand-sketch on the board, then people might not have been as critical
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

96 points by mrshoe 17y ago

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago

Inaccurate, whimsical, but a good analogy to explain the "overnight success" story to non-scientists. I like it.

swombat 17y ago
As a former physicist, I find it hard to ignore just how inaccurate the graph is...
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
  I can understand that, and largely I feel the same. But over the past 20 years since completing my PhD I've learned on occasion to let go of the details and look to the underlying point. Sometimes, indeed, often, the example or the calculations are fundamentally wrong, but the point is sound. I've found I've learned a lot after having learned to look beyond the specifics of a given example. It doesn't suit everyone, it doesn't work for everyone, and I wouldn't claim that everyone should do it. It works for me.

obsaysditto 17y ago

If only the magical engine was always constant.

francoisdevlin 17y ago
And the box never gets heavier.
- _delirium 17y ago
  And the speed of light isn't finite...

simon_ 17y ago

Acceleration = F/m implies Position = F/2m(t^2) + k1(t) + k2 That's quadratic, but definitely not exponential, and doesn't really look like the curve he drew. I know the guy's argument doesn't really depend on the shape of the curve, but it's a pet peeve of mine that exponential growth is always presented in an inaccurate way. EDIT: fixed embarrassing calculus error

ygd_coder 17y ago
Actually: x = 1/2 * a * t^2 + v0 * t + x0
- simon_ 17y ago
  doh, fixed.
jedbrown 17y ago
The curve doesn't even look exponential since it seems to become infinite at finite time, more like 1/(T-t).

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

ccc3 17y ago

I wonder how far you could extend the analogy. If distance = $ and force = effort, what startup attribute corresponds to mass? Maybe difficulty of the problem, or level of competition.

nfnaaron 17y ago
mass = tasks, the ones that need repeating (or you'll stop (making money)) and the ones that have yet to be done (or you'll stop (making money)).

grannyg00se 17y ago

This is often seen with artists who experience apparent overnight success with break out material. When you look them up on wikipedia, you find that they've actually been slugging it out in their industry for many years. Of course that's not always the case, sometimes they really did just get incredibly lucky. But most often, this type of success comes with tenacity, drive, and talent. Not simply talent, and not simply luck. We miss the long starting tail that came before the meteoric rise. Unfortunately some people aren't wise to this and think that their luck is somehow worse than everyone else's.

Freebytes 17y ago

I really disliked this article and found it a complete waste of time to read. On this web site, I would expect this article to lead to something scientific, something related to programming, or perhaps information that would be beneficial to someone starting a business. While off topic content is certainly acceptable at times, this is really pointless to me and contributes nothing. It was not worth reading, and the only reason why I am even responding is to hopefully contribute by having others consider their content before linking worthless content to the site. I cannot really see how it has been rated so highly, and it makes me wonder if I am missing something. It is neither accurate nor useful in any way. It does not even benefit me in a way to get me thinking in a positive manner or to help me generate ideas.

mrshoe 17y ago
Hey, author here. I don't usually comment on my own articles on HN, but this comment was one of the more negative ones I've seen here. A lot of us here on Hacker News (formerly Startup News) are working on startups. One of the biggest challenges facing startups is finding the determination to work hard during the long initial period where you might see very few fruits from your labors. Personally, I like to read pg's "How Not to Die" frequently (http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html). It was in this light that I wrote the article. I submitted it to HN and apparently it struck a chord with a lot of readers here, and they upvoted it. Not every article on HN is going to appeal to every reader. Perhaps you're not working on a startup, so this article doesn't really apply to you. Maybe my next one will. Recognize that not all HN readers are in the same situation in life; enjoy the articles that apply directly to your situation, and read the others to give you perspective on the lives of your fellow HNers.
- pgbovine 17y ago
  agreed ... your blog post tried to convey a very simple and punchy idea, and you didn't make any pretenses about it being 'mathematically accurate' or whatever, so i'm astounded that people have nitpicked on your curves not being accurate or whatever. a piece of presentation advice i've heard for creating graphs and diagrams is that if you don't want people to nitpick on details, make a really crappy low-fidelity sketch so that people don't have an expectation of precision. i once got ripped on because i drew a line that looks like 1 / x^2 to talk about inverse correlation, but people nitpicked on whether it was a power law, 1/x, whether the integral converges, etc., which was totally irrelevant to my argument. if i had made a crappy hand-sketch on the board, then people might not have been as critical

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]