4 ms·

This is only slightly related so I ask forgiveness in advance. But historical accuracy is a pet peeve of mine. That said Steve Jobs bought Pixar after seeing

This is only slightly related so I ask forgiveness in advance. But historical accuracy is a pet peeve of mine. That said Steve Jobs bought Pixar after seeing the Luxo Jr video (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxo_Jr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxo_Jr.). The true genius behind Pixar is John Lasseter and always has been. Steve Jobs just provided funding. Don't get the wrong impression. I think it says even more of Jobs in that he recognized a visionary in Lasseter and was smart enough to just get out of his way. And Jobs did make some smart business decisions like selling off Pixar's hardware business. But he was not the visionary behind Pixar.

stcredzero 16y ago
I think it says even more of Jobs in that he recognized a visionary in Lasseter and was smart enough to just get out of his way. So, he's a meta-visionary? That's what the real angels are, the ones that succeed, and the rest are cargo-cult wannabes. (Perhaps some also-rans who had a little bad luck?) I'm beginning to see more and more that people with entrepreneurial mindsets need entire sets of strategies for dealing with people who are without the mindset. Maybe this is the reason why Jobs has a reputation, because his strategy is to not suffer fools. It seems like most people in workaday communications are accustomed to filtering out unnecessary BS, taking the one or two relevant points and acting on them. I can see how this is useful, but if they ever start working for someone who only sends a few relevant pieces of information, they're still in the habit of filtering out! This can lead to infuriating situations. An example: I send out an email to my assistants. I need someone to complete a transaction in thus and such a timeframe. They need to get this device from me and meet with the other party. I tell them it's an 88 key MIDI keyboard, I give the product number, and instruct my assistants to Google it, so they know exactly what it is. I give the other party's contact information. Let me know if you can handle it. I get no answer from one assistant, but the other emails back and says he'll be by to pick it up. He comes by, looks at it, then tells me he can't do it, and looks at me like I'm stupid because it won't fit in his vehicle. ARRRRGH! I have other examples. It seems to me some people are accustomed to ignoring 75% of communications. (P.S. The gentleman is no longer my assistant.)
- endtime 16y ago
  Interesting. I think I get stung by this as well - I've been struggling to understand why my clear, detailed, fluff-free emails aren't effective. The naive solution seems to be to pad your emails with bullshit, but I think this would often make them so long that they just don't get read. One solution I've found is to talk to people in person, but this isn't time-efficient; another is to write a numbered(!) list of questions at the bottom, to force people to think about the things I want them to think about. But neither of these seems particularly elegant; has anyone come up with something better?
  - ultrasaurus 16y ago
    Too many people write stream-of-conciousness emails, where they figure it out in their head, and don't clean out the cruft after (and if they don't want to read it, why would I) I think people have evolved in response to this to scan every email for 2-3 actionable sentences and stop once their queue is full. The best I can do is to template the email: [Pleasantries in on paragraph] -action 1 (in 10 words or less) -action 2 (in 7 words or less) [Status updates and other fluff, they can read it or not]
    - waleedka 16y ago
      Good point. Another technique I use is to send unrelated items in separate emails. People tend to use the inbox as a todo list, so getting 3 short emails is easier to manage than one long email. Once you act on one, you archive it and move to the next.
      - stcredzero 16y ago
        There are others who just act on the 1st email in a group of 3. Fire those people too!
    - vacri 16y ago
      I tend to waffle a bit (well, usually informative, but lots of info), so now at longish emails I go back to the top and put 'summary: foo'. Folks can get the summary and then drill down to detail if they want to. That's not going to help the GPs keyboard problem though.

stcredzero 16y ago

I think it says even more of Jobs in that he recognized a visionary in Lasseter and was smart enough to just get out of his way. So, he's a meta-visionary? That's what the real angels are, the ones that succeed, and the rest are cargo-cult wannabes. (Perhaps some also-rans who had a little bad luck?) I'm beginning to see more and more that people with entrepreneurial mindsets need entire sets of strategies for dealing with people who are without the mindset. Maybe this is the reason why Jobs has a reputation, because his strategy is to not suffer fools. It seems like most people in workaday communications are accustomed to filtering out unnecessary BS, taking the one or two relevant points and acting on them. I can see how this is useful, but if they ever start working for someone who only sends a few relevant pieces of information, they're still in the habit of filtering out! This can lead to infuriating situations. An example: I send out an email to my assistants. I need someone to complete a transaction in thus and such a timeframe. They need to get this device from me and meet with the other party. I tell them it's an 88 key MIDI keyboard, I give the product number, and instruct my assistants to Google it, so they know exactly what it is. I give the other party's contact information. Let me know if you can handle it. I get no answer from one assistant, but the other emails back and says he'll be by to pick it up. He comes by, looks at it, then tells me he can't do it, and looks at me like I'm stupid because it won't fit in his vehicle. ARRRRGH! I have other examples. It seems to me some people are accustomed to ignoring 75% of communications. (P.S. The gentleman is no longer my assistant.)

endtime 16y ago
Interesting. I think I get stung by this as well - I've been struggling to understand why my clear, detailed, fluff-free emails aren't effective. The naive solution seems to be to pad your emails with bullshit, but I think this would often make them so long that they just don't get read. One solution I've found is to talk to people in person, but this isn't time-efficient; another is to write a numbered(!) list of questions at the bottom, to force people to think about the things I want them to think about. But neither of these seems particularly elegant; has anyone come up with something better?
- ultrasaurus 16y ago
  Too many people write stream-of-conciousness emails, where they figure it out in their head, and don't clean out the cruft after (and if they don't want to read it, why would I) I think people have evolved in response to this to scan every email for 2-3 actionable sentences and stop once their queue is full. The best I can do is to template the email: [Pleasantries in on paragraph] -action 1 (in 10 words or less) -action 2 (in 7 words or less) [Status updates and other fluff, they can read it or not]
  - waleedka 16y ago
    Good point. Another technique I use is to send unrelated items in separate emails. People tend to use the inbox as a todo list, so getting 3 short emails is easier to manage than one long email. Once you act on one, you archive it and move to the next.
    - stcredzero 16y ago
      There are others who just act on the 1st email in a group of 3. Fire those people too!
  - vacri 16y ago
    I tend to waffle a bit (well, usually informative, but lots of info), so now at longish emails I go back to the top and put 'summary: foo'. Folks can get the summary and then drill down to detail if they want to. That's not going to help the GPs keyboard problem though.