I feel like validation is less of an end-state and more of a process of increasing probability. Like you might start with one data point ("hey, it's really ann

I feel like validation is less of an end-state and more of a process of increasing probability. Like you might start with one data point ("hey, it's really annoying when I try to do X" or there are a couple posts in online forums from people describing problem X). Then you get more data (see if more people have that problem, talk to the users on forum posts about their specific needs, find out where potential users hang out and how many people might have this problem). Then maybe you build something simple to address the needs and see if people are interested / use it / pay for it (landing page or minimum valuable product). Then you get feedback from the initial users about what they're really needing and iterate lots of times to get it right while figuring out where and how to market/distribute. Throughout this process there's an increasing sense of confidence that you're on the right track (or not). But also sometimes you build something just because and it turns out that lots of people like it (Minecraft). But the risk of wasting a lot of time and effort is a lot higher without continuous feedback.