This intuitively makes sense, but then it raises the question of how anybody scales. I think you've got choices: 1. Hire actual experts at the things you're no

This intuitively makes sense, but then it raises the question of how anybody scales. I think you've got choices: 1. Hire actual experts at the things you're not expert at. Most successful startups did this. Hilariously we then ascribe to the founders - Gates, Jobs, Bezos, Page/Brin, Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Musk - these "genius" characteristics, but in fact they set a vision and get OK at getting other people to do the work at each stage while keeping a sense of shared culture going. Often with a lot of external support and advice. They might then develop the skills themselves through osmosis: fake it until you make it. 2. Become a novice again, as the author of TFA suggests. I think this is harder, but I think it's the route most authors take: start with short stories, learn some craft, figure out how to scale it. I'm not an expert, but I'd guess composers must start with learning composition for an instrument and hone the craft and learn anew as they scale before they take on something for an entire orchestra. 3. You have another choice. Just don't. Find the limits of what you can do and stay within them. The Peter Principle[1] warns against trying to rise above your level of competence. For many people here, figuring out how to build a unicorn is a serious obsession. For many, many more (myself included), figuring out how to build something that provides freedom without the burden of 100x growth beyond what is possible with current skills is more appealing. I hadn't quite thought about it in terms of two zeroes though. I wonder if in some disciplines the difficulty is one zero, or in others its three or more. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle