4 ms·
But then he doesn't really define good, makes an odd comparison to a now acclaimed pulp fiction author and then says we can only really know what is good after
by sitkack 2y ago
But then he doesn't really define good, makes an odd comparison to a now acclaimed pulp fiction author and then says we can only really know what is good after the fact.
Leaning on "new" so hard as part of the "good" just reduces to, "Make new-new things that aren't by every objective measure bad and see if it works out in hindsight".
It would be helpful if we understood what good and bad mean to him.
- mbesto 2y agoHis essay from 2008[0] is just as nebulous. When you have such a hand-wavy definition of such an important term, it ultimately means you can wield your narrative to fit any conclusion you want. [0] - https://www.paulgraham.com/good.html https://www.paulgraham.com/good.html
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]