I didn't even read Bill's article. My comment is not a commentary on the person, but the "feel" of articles like these.
There are certainly CEOs that I admire and I'm not advocating that we stick our heads in the sand. But, good grief, how many articles, books, blog posts, talks, etc. about "what successful people do" do we really need?
I hate the fallacies they promote: a.) you are too stupid to figure out how to succeed, and b.) you should therefore worship others to the point that you mimic them as a path to success, and c.) that (by implication) if you are not succeeding, then it's because you haven't studied and imitated others enough.
BTW, it's another fallacy that if we just all go out and do X, then we can succeed too. It's ridiculous, really. A little advice is fine, but there is this culture that we all need to swim in the same direction, following the anointed few who have figured it all out when we could not. Go to the mountaintop to confer with Tim Ferriss or Jason Fried, and all will be well. Well, maybe they got lucky. Maybe if they'd studied what the reader did every day, they'd be 12 times more successful.
It's so stifling, condescending, and flat-out unworkable. It is also potentially demoralizing to founders who are working hard to gain traction. Insidiously enough, this, even while it appears to be inspirational.
If you were thinking and working hard every day at the incredibly complex and difficult task of lifting a startup off the ground, and you read one of these types of articles a day, you would run in circles and fall into a deep depression. Meanwhile, the actual extent to which the cacaphony of such advice will move the needle for such a founder is miniscule.
How about this? Think and work as hard and as smart as you find you need to. Listen to your own instinct and use your judgment, even in taking advice from others (including mine). You have what you need to succeed. Screw the people who keep trying to "help" you by implying that you are deficient; whether in books they are selling, facile articles with linkbait titles, or otherwise.
You didn't read the article so you have no idea about the 'feel' of it. You're judging it based on the title (which is on par with judging a book by it's cover).
As with most advice, you should take it with a pinch of salt but it is worth examining it and taking things that seem relevant to you. If you never read anything then you'll certainly close off the opportunity to find something useful.
In this case, the claim about 'hours per day' is something I'll dismiss. However, the idea of 'No templates' for emails is quite useful as is the idea of keeping Playbooks (purely because it's another word for 'documentation' but people don't get excited about that one).
>You're judging it based on the title (which is on par with judging a book by it's cover)
Yes. Of course I am. Repetitive, vacuous, linkbait titles speak for themselves. That's why "linkbait" is a phrase.
Also, if the title of a book is "How to Grow Grapes", then I can guess enough about its contents to determine whether it's for me. So, literally judging a book by its cover is prudent, contrary to popular belief.
I mean, when you browse HN, do you scan the subjects or click and read each article to determine whether it's of interest to you? Likewise, people put thought into the titles of their articles for a reason.
Still, perhaps if there weren't 8 trillion blog posts, books, articles, talks, etc. of this ilk, I'd feel differently. But, as it is, there are.
>If you never read anything then you'll certainly close off the opportunity to find something useful.
I'm certainly in no danger of that. I read a good bit. And, that once included my share of articles, books, etc. of the subject ilk. I am well familiar enough to know that the premise that there is value to be derived from loading up on this kind of stuff is ludicrous and counter-productive.
In other words, I know the value of reading and I also know the value of not reading certain things.
Again, it's not any individual article to which I object. So, your finding a helpful tip in this article is not disproving my point or even addressing it. It's the plethora of such articles, the "path to success" they promote, and the overall false premises upon which they are collectively built.
You're not going to win as a founder/CEO by letting someone else do your thinking for you or by following someone else's path. There are far too many variables that go into success (including luck) and far too many decisions to be made that are unique to you. Such articles implicitly undermine people's confidence by making them believe that they need to imitate others to find success.
You are right. There are tons of terrible articles on the web that claim to "have the key to success." Replicating what successful people do isn't the key.
I'm just saying that your comment ("I viscerally hate these articles") belongs on a thread about a crappy article. Not on a thread about great article. This one is by a great entrepreneur and one who interacts with hundreds of smart CEOs. This article is the one others strive to be like. It shares how smart people work - it doesn't tell you how to be successful.
Your comment also belongs on the thread of an article that you have actually read.
EDIT: We disagree. But, rather than try to convince you, I've removed this comment. It occurs to me that I have a different way of thinking about this that others might appreciate and find helpful.
It's also part of a bigger set of "issues" that I have with the status quo. That is, it's one of several things in the current startup ethos that I believe constrains too many good people. So, rather than continue to discuss this on a soon-to-be obscure HN thread, perhaps I will find a different format for injecting a different set of more broadly empowering ideas into the environment.
Or, maybe each has his/her own style that works for him/her.
I viscerally hate these articles.