I agree with lessons 1-3, but I'm not convinced about the rest of them. By definition, any engineering on a failed project is "over" engineering. But there ar

I agree with lessons 1-3, but I'm not convinced about the rest of them. By definition, any engineering on a failed project is "over" engineering. But there are certainly some projects where investing in a little more development at the beginning will have a greater payback later. Lack of risk subsidizing never stopped craiglist or airbnb (in its early years). If people want something badly enough they will figure out their own way to deal with the risk. Having a good cofounder is probably better than not having one, but there are tons of successful products and companies started by individual people. If the market is busy kicking your ass, a little positive encouragement can be helpful. All startups are really tough at the beginning, and this one never made it out of that stage. But if it had, this rule would probably be the opposite. Also if you want some critical opinions, just try to raise money. Certainly after an failed startup it makes sense to look back and try to figure out what went wrong, but you also shouldn't overfit. I realize the medium of blog posts does reward overfitting and making rules, but the real world is much more nuanced.