tag:thebadprince.svbtle.com,2014:/feedJomi Cubol2018-05-31T15:24:19-07:00Jomi Cubolhttps://thebadprince.svbtle.comjomi.cubol@gmail.comSvbtle.comtag:thebadprince.svbtle.com,2014:Post/life-is-about-people2018-05-31T15:24:19-07:002018-05-31T15:24:19-07:00Life is About People<p>As I get older, I’m more convinced life is ultimately about spending time with amazing people.</p>
<p>This was not so obvious to me growing up and is still unnatural for me as someone who loves spending time alone.</p>
<p>But being around amazing people who make you better makes life better. Life is more likely to be average or mediocre if you’re around average or mediocre people, but we can increase the likelihood of our lives being amazing if we’re around amazing people.</p>
<p>Humanity is about connection, building memories, and triumphing against worthwhile challenges. You can only do that by being around great people and being a great person to be around with.</p>
<p>As the saying goes: “If you want to go fast go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”</p>
<p>If the quality of our lives depend on who we spend time with, it makes perfect sense that we should aim to have a high standard for people (family, friends, colleagues, partners, etc.) we surround ourselves with. We absolutely need to be selfish about it, and should expect others to do the same.</p>
<p>It’s only right that we should seek the absolute best people we can spend our time with, given that life is finite and because our lives get exponentially better the more amazing people we surround ourselves with. It is truly one of those things where the returns increase with more inputs and compound on each other on a long time horizon.</p>
<p>But what is “great” or “amazing”? That depends on what purpose that other person serves in your life (and make no mistake that you too serve a purpose in other people’s lives, thus being high value is imperative if we want to be surrounded with high value people). </p>
<p>If it’s your friends, do they <em>truly</em> support you in your endeavors? Do they raise your ambition? Do they make you want to be better? Do they keep it real with you and tell you things straight? Do they have your back when you’re down? Do they make you feel you belong? Do you have them for life?</p>
<p>If it’s your colleagues, do they challenge your thinking? Do they help you grow in your career? Do they make you want to bring your A-game? Do you trust their judgment? Do they <em>truly</em> want what’s best for the team and company? Do they want to win as bad as you do?</p>
<p>If it’s your partner, do they inspire you? Do they make you feel you’re fortunate? Do they make you want to be a better person? Do they make life sweeter and more meaningful? Do they seem like they would be great parents? Do they seem like good role models? Do they exemplify traits you wish your children would have? Do they make life worth living?</p>
<p>Life is meant to be lived in the company of amazing people.</p>
<p>If you can’t find any, ask yourself why, or go find them.</p>
<p>This is one of those challenges worth a lifetime to get right.</p>
tag:thebadprince.svbtle.com,2014:Post/design-has-never-been-more-important2017-02-13T02:45:17-08:002017-02-13T02:45:17-08:00Design Has Never Been More Important
<p>As design tools become more democratized and decent design becomes more accessible to the masses, there is a pervading idea that good design will become commoditized, and will matter much less than it used to be when good design was rare, expensive, and took too much time to achieve.</p>
<p>I think the opposite.</p>
<p>I believe that the more abundant information, stories, ideas, identities, and products become, especially in the age of the internet, and then the age of mobile, and whichever next major platform wins next (AR, VR, even voice), that design, and form in particular—meaning the manifestation of its aesthetic—is only going to matter more, not less.</p>
<p>It will only become harder to differentiate in a sea of noise, to identify which things to trust, which things we might gravitate towards, which things will have our consistent loyalty and allegiance and place of belonging and sense of identity. There are more products today than ever before, whether tangible (consumer packaged goods) or intangible (news, entertainment, affiliations) and these things will only increase overtime as the market grows and expands to new fields we haven’t even thought of yet. </p>
<p>And the idea that design always takes a backseat of what the actual <u>thing</u> is seems rather backwards to me.</p>
<p>There is always form. It is not separate from a thing anymore than you can’t have an eagle without its aerodynamic and ravenous properties that allow it to be an eagle. For design’s sake, there is always some reason behind form whether intentionally or unintentionally (if something is printed in the default font of a word processor, there is still a reason for that). And I truly believe we’re inching towards a world where the form is no longer just an afterthought, something that has to be imagined or established after the conception of an idea, but rather, the very source of the idea, the foundation and core pillar of what something might be, and the very thing that separates that something with other things not just in perception but in overall experience, place, and purpose in people’s lives.</p>
<p>Design is often the last thing considered, but we will increasingly move into a world where design becomes the starting point, because it will become virtually impossible to divorce an idea from its form, and its form as the primary reason why something is needed, wanted, purchased, and bought into.</p>
<p>But wouldn’t strategy always come first exactly because it’s easier to create than a cohesive design? What I’m arguing here is that more and more these two things will not be so far apart—that there is no strategy without the idea of design, and the design of something becomes the very essence of a strategy.</p>
<p>Design will only become more important, not less. There has never been a better time to be a designer, to be a student of form, to be a champion of communication, to be a firebrand of culture, to be an author of invention, in the history of ever. Designers might be problem solvers, but more and more, designers are going to be makers and builders and creators, not just as mercenaries for hire to solve problems they don’t care about or perform commissions for institutions that only serve as a source of income, but the spark of new realities themselves, the ones who will make the future happen faster, those who will push new meaning into the world, because of their belief that something—including, especially, and because of its form—deserves to exist.</p>
tag:thebadprince.svbtle.com,2014:Post/purpose2016-05-21T09:48:01-07:002016-05-21T09:48:01-07:00Hunter S. Thompson on Choosing Your Purpose<p><a href="https://svbtleusercontent.com/bkpctpf5vosbpq.jpg" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://svbtleusercontent.com/bkpctpf5vosbpq_small.jpg" alt="hst.jpg"></a></p>
<p>Below is 22-year-old Hunter S. Thompson’s letter to a friend who asked him for some life advice. This was way before he would be known as one of the greatest writers of the 20th century, but he was already full of wit and wisdom.</p>
<p>I’ve read this a few times before, and each time, it strikes a different cord with me. I get to ask myself, <strong>“Am I merely adjusting to a set of pre-defined goals I <em>think</em> I have to do and achieve? Or am I acting out towards a life that I believe would be <em>meaningful</em>?”</strong> That’s a heavy question, but one that never fails to set me straight. </p>
<p>Often we’re bogged down with goals that deep down don’t really align with who we are. Goals we tend to chase merely for our own ego, for whatever short-lived accolades or pats on the back, or perceived rewards that don’t have much substance. </p>
<p>I’m not immune to this. </p>
<p>I could only hope I have the foresight to take time and evaluate whatever goals I currently have with honesty, and reflect whether I’m operating based on the life I truly want to live, rather than bending myself towards goals that are ever-more fleeting.</p>
<p>(NOTE: As always, my favorite parts are emphasized).</p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p>April 22, 1958</p>
<p>57 Perry Street</p>
<p>New York City</p>
<p>Dear Hume,</p>
<p>You ask advice: ah, what a very human and very dangerous thing to do! For to give advice to a man who asks what to do with his life implies something very close to egomania. To presume to point a man to the right and ultimate goal — to point with a trembling finger in the RIGHT direction is something only a fool would take upon himself.</p>
<p>I am not a fool, but I respect your sincerity in asking my advice. I ask you though, in listening to what I say, to remember that all advice can only be a product of the man who gives it. What is truth to one may be disaster to another. I do not see life through your eyes, nor you through mine. If I were to attempt to give you specific advice, it would be too much like the blind leading the blind.</p>
<p>“To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles … ” (Shakespeare)</p>
<p>And indeed, that IS the question: whether to float with the tide, or to swim for a goal. It is a choice we must all make consciously or unconsciously at one time in our lives. So few people understand this! Think of any decision you’ve ever made which had a bearing on your future: I may be wrong, but I don’t see how it could have been anything but a choice however indirect — between the two things I’ve mentioned: the floating or the swimming.</p>
<p>But why not float if you have no goal? That is another question. It is unquestionably better to enjoy the floating than to swim in uncertainty. So how does a man find a goal? Not a castle in the stars, but a real and tangible thing. How can a man be sure he’s not after the “big rock candy mountain,” the enticing sugar-candy goal that has little taste and no substance?</p>
<p><strong>The answer — and, in a sense, the tragedy of life — is that we seek to understand the goal and not the man. We set up a goal which demands of us certain things: and we do these things. We adjust to the demands of a concept which CANNOT be valid.</strong> When you were young, let us say that you wanted to be a fireman. I feel reasonably safe in saying that you no longer want to be a fireman. Why? Because your perspective has changed. It’s not the fireman who has changed, but you. Every man is the sum total of his reactions to experience. As your experiences differ and multiply, you become a different man, and hence your perspective changes. This goes on and on. Every reaction is a learning process; every significant experience alters your perspective.</p>
<p><strong>So it would seem foolish, would it not, to adjust our lives to the demands of a goal we see from a different angle every day? How could we ever hope to accomplish anything other than galloping neurosis?</strong></p>
<p>The answer, then, must not deal with goals at all, or not with tangible goals, anyway. It would take reams of paper to develop this subject to fulfillment. God only knows how many books have been written on “the meaning of man” and that sort of thing, and god only knows how many people have pondered the subject. (I use the term “god only knows” purely as an expression.) There’s very little sense in my trying to give it up to you in the proverbial nutshell, because I’m the first to admit my absolute lack of qualifications for reducing the meaning of life to one or two paragraphs.</p>
<p>I’m going to steer clear of the word “existentialism,” but you might keep it in mind as a key of sorts. You might also try something called “Being and Nothingness” by Jean-Paul Sartre, and another little thing called “Existentialism: From Dostoyevsky to Sartre.” These are merely suggestions. If you’re genuinely satisfied with what you are and what you’re doing, then give those books a wide berth. (Let sleeping dogs lie.) But back to the answer. <strong>As I said, to put our faith in tangible goals would seem to be, at best, unwise. So we do not strive to be firemen, we do not strive to be bankers, nor policemen, nor doctors. WE STRIVE TO BE OURSELVES.</strong></p>
<p>But don’t misunderstand me. I don’t mean that we can’t BE firemen, bankers, or doctors — but that <strong>we must make the goal conform to the individual, rather than make the individual conform to the goal.</strong> In every man, heredity and environment have combined to produce a creature of certain abilities and desires — including a deeply ingrained need to function in such a way that his life will be MEANINGFUL. A man has to BE something; he has to matter.</p>
<p><strong>As I see it then, the formula runs something like this: a man must choose a path which will let his ABILITIES function at maximum efficiency toward the gratification of his DESIRES.</strong> In doing this, he is fulfilling a need (giving himself identity by functioning in a set pattern toward a set goal), he avoids frustrating his potential (choosing a path which puts no limit on his self-development), and he avoids the terror of seeing his goal wilt or lose its charm as he draws closer to it (rather than bending himself to meet the demands of that which he seeks, he has bent his goal to conform to his own abilities and desires).</p>
<p><strong>In short, he has not dedicated his life to reaching a pre-defined goal, but he has rather chosen a way of life he KNOWS he will enjoy. The goal is absolutely secondary: it is the functioning toward the goal which is important. And it seems almost ridiculous to say that a man MUST function in a pattern of his own choosing; for to let another man define your own goals is to give up one of the most meaningful aspects of life — the definitive act of will which makes a man an individual.</strong></p>
<p>Let’s assume that you think you have a choice of eight paths to follow (all pre-defined paths, of course). And let’s assume that you can’t see any real purpose in any of the eight. THEN — and here is the essence of all I’ve said — you MUST FIND A NINTH PATH.</p>
<p>Naturally, it isn’t as easy as it sounds. You’ve lived a relatively narrow life, a vertical rather than a horizontal existence. So it isn’t any too difficult to understand why you seem to feel the way you do. <strong>But a man who procrastinates in his CHOOSING will inevitably have his choice made for him by circumstance.</strong></p>
<p>So if you now number yourself among the disenchanted, then you have no choice but to accept things as they are, or to seriously seek something else. <strong>But beware of looking for goals: look for a way of life. Decide how you want to live and then see what you can do to make a living WITHIN that way of life.</strong> But you say, “I don’t know where to look; I don’t know what to look for.”</p>
<p>And there’s the crux. <strong>Is it worth giving up what I have to look for something better? I don’t know — is it? Who can make that decision but you? But even by DECIDING TO LOOK, you go a long way toward making the choice.</strong></p>
<p>If I don’t call this to a halt, I’m going to find myself writing a book. I hope it’s not as confusing as it looks at first glance. Keep in mind, of course, that this is MY WAY of looking at things. I happen to think that it’s pretty generally applicable, but you may not. Each of us has to create our own credo — this merely happens to be mine.</p>
<p>If any part of it doesn’t seem to make sense, by all means call it to my attention. I’m not trying to send you out “on the road” in search of Valhalla, but merely pointing out that it is not necessary to accept the choices handed down to you by life as you know it. There is more to it than that — no one HAS to do something he doesn’t want to do for the rest of his life. But then again, if that’s what you wind up doing, by all means convince yourself that you HAD to do it. You’ll have lots of company.</p>
<p>And that’s it for now. Until I hear from you again, I remain,</p>
<p>your friend,</p>
<p>Hunter</p>
</blockquote>tag:thebadprince.svbtle.com,2014:Post/culture-creates-great-products2016-04-20T10:19:59-07:002016-04-20T10:19:59-07:00Great Products Aren't Created in a Vacuum<p><a href="https://svbtleusercontent.com/ctp0c1hbkbmdiq.jpg" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://svbtleusercontent.com/ctp0c1hbkbmdiq_small.jpg" alt="amazon.jpg"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/benthompson" rel="nofollow">Ben Thompson</a> wrote a wonderful analysis titled “<a href="https://stratechery.com/2016/apples-organizational-crossroads/" rel="nofollow">Apple’s Organizational Crossroads</a>” that gets to the core of organizational structures and how they influence the quality of products they make. In this case, his example is Apple and their seemingly subpar performance in service categories, at least thus far..</p>
<p>His argument is that if Apple wants to become more of a services company, they can’t use their current organizational structure as a device company to support this layer because their needs and functions are vastly different. For example, in hardware, things can only be done once before its shipped. In software, things have to constantly be worked on, sometimes even multiple times a day to consistently make something better over and over again. While Apple is the best in the world at this sort of iteration on a hardware level, it’s quite different in the world of software-as-as-service.</p>
<p>If they keep the same structure that they’ve used on their device side towards the services side, their promise of superior user experience suffers, which is already the case with a lot of their digital products, namely Siri, iCloud, Apple Music, and the App Store among others. And the problem is, while they are far and away the leader of the most profitable and most important layer—the smartphone—having subpar products on a service level muddles their promise of a completely seamless ecosystem. And their challenge is to either go all in on services, which would require an organizational change, or don’t go into it at all. But as iPhone sales mature and becomes saturated in the market, their move into services becomes a play—but it will only work if change happens internally that allows for great service products to be made.</p>
<p>He got to a central point that from what it seems, a lot of people miss in organizations big and small (emphasis mine):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Apple will not fix the services it already has, or deliver on the promise of the services its hardware might yet enable, unless a new kind of organization is built around these services that has a fundamentally different structure, different incentives, and different rhythms from Apple’s device teams. <strong>You don’t make great products because you want to make great products; you make great products by creating the conditions where great products can be produced.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>My takeaway from this paragraph is that, at the end of the day, it is not intent that matters most; culture does. Everyone would like to make great products according to their constraints, but it’s the culture that dictates <em>how</em> things get made. Culture isn’t just a company’s values or rules plastered on the wall; it’s how people do things inside the company, how they work together, and the conditions that allow people to operate in a particular way. And this culture, is inevitably reflected in the product that is shipped. And though Apple is the undisputed king in terms of shipping top of the line hardware because of their supply chain capabilities and distribution mechanisms built over the past two decades, the game is different in the software side, and they can’t operate in the same release schedule when their software gets updated when new operating systems come out. It just doesn’t work that way in service products. </p>
<p>Apple is the current example here but this applies for most organizations: You can <em>want</em> to create great products and have the most talented individual contributors and managers and executives, but until the organizational structure reflects a culture where great products <em>can</em> be produced in the manner that they should, they will not come to life. Even if they have a chance, their long-term existence becomes dampened. </p>
<p>If there’s too much focus on the bureaucracy, ego, credit, and holding on to “how things were” and other factors that hurt collaboration and creativity within an organization, nothing truly great will come out on the other end. And even if most things are aligned but the structure of the company doesn’t foster the conditions for the products they’re making to reach their maximum potential, the products will still end up hurting.</p>
<p>Point being, you have to adjust your process, accountability, speed, resources, and focus, depending on what it is you’re trying to make. <strong>What organizations produce is a reflection of their very structure: the things that matter inside the company is exactly what’s going to come out in the products that people use.</strong></p>
<p>As a counterpoint to Apple’s current dilemma, one of the more recent and prominent examples where organizational structure and output are extremely aligned is Amazon. Jeff Bezos, in his <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000119312516530910/d168744dex991.htm" rel="nofollow">most recent letter to shareholders</a> emphasized strongly on how Amazon’s culture, which is hellbent on experimentation, is their main competitive advantage:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A word about corporate cultures: for better or for worse, they are enduring, stable, hard to change. They can be a source of advantage or disadvantage. You can write down your corporate culture, but when you do so, you’re discovering it, uncovering it – not creating it. It is created slowly over time by the people and by events – by the stories of past success and failure that become a deep part of the company lore. If it’s a distinctive culture, it will fit certain people like a custom-made glove. The reason cultures are so stable in time is because people self-select. Someone energized by competitive zeal may select and be happy in one culture, while someone who loves to pioneer and invent may choose another. The world, thankfully, is full of many high-performing, highly distinctive corporate cultures. <strong>We never claim that our approach is the right one – just that it’s ours – and over the last two decades, we’ve collected a large group of like-minded people. Folks who find our approach energizing and meaningful.</strong></p>
<p><strong>One area where I think we are especially distinctive is failure. I believe we are the best place in the world to fail (we have plenty of practice!), and failure and invention are inseparable twins. To invent you have to experiment, and if you know in advance that it’s going to work, it’s not an experiment. Most large organizations embrace the idea of invention, but are not willing to suffer the string of failed experiments necessary to get there.</strong> Outsized returns often come from betting against conventional wisdom, and conventional wisdom is usually right. Given a ten percent chance of a 100 times payoff, you should take that bet every time. But you’re still going to be wrong nine times out of ten. We all know that if you swing for the fences, you’re going to strike out a lot, but you’re also going to hit some home runs. The difference between baseball and business, however, is that baseball has a truncated outcome distribution. When you swing, no matter how well you connect with the ball, the most runs you can get is four. In business, every once in a while, when you step up to the plate, you can score 1,000 runs. <strong>This long-tailed distribution of returns is why it’s important to be bold. Big winners pay for so many experiments.</strong></p>
</blockquote><h3 id="conclusion_3">CONCLUSION <a class="head_anchor" href="#conclusion_3" rel="nofollow">#</a>
</h3>
<p><strong>If you want to be in a position to create great products, find an organization that fosters such a culture, or be the linchpin within an organization that will propel such a culture.</strong> Or better yet, <em>be a multiplier of the culture that you want to create</em>. Organizational structure will always dictate how things will be produced—this is the invisible hand that works inside companies, but as individual contributors, we can either deter, reflect, or multiple that culture.</p>
<p>After all, an organization is a design problem in itself—extremely challenging because people are complex, but very fulfilling if actually shifted to new heights.</p>
<p><strong>Final Note:</strong> Some might argue that Amazon churns out a lot of products that aren’t necessarily “great” like the Fire Phone for example. However, as Jeff Bezos said, this is precisely what happens in a company that strongly prioritizes consistent experimentation. They’re not always going to get it right, but when they do, they become promising products (Amazon Video, Amazon Dash, Alexa, etc.) that have the potential to be massive multi-billion dollar businesses (Amazon Marketplace, Amazon Web Services, and Amazon Prime). These things do not come from a vacuum; rather, Amazon’s distinct culture created conditions for such things to exist, and eventually, succeed.</p>
tag:thebadprince.svbtle.com,2014:Post/falcon92016-04-08T20:23:28-07:002016-04-08T20:23:28-07:00SpaceX's historic Falcon 9 landing of allows us to dream really REALLY big again.<p><img src="https://cldup.com/CXdZr4Pama.gif" alt=""></p>
<p>Nick Stockton via <a href="http://www.wired.com/2016/04/spacexs-rocket-victorious-robot-boat-last/#slide-2" rel="nofollow">Wired</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Today in space history, a rocket went to space. No big. But then it came back down and <a href="http://www.wired.com/2016/04/spacexs-rocket-victorious-robot-boat-last/" rel="nofollow">landed on a drone barge in the middle of the ocean</a>.</p>
<p>The rocket was a Falcon 9, built by SpaceX, Elon Musk‘s commercial spaceflight company. On its own, the retropropulsion landing is a major technological accomplishment. But it means even more as a step toward reliably getting humans off of Earth—maybe even permanently. “In order for us to really open up access to space,” Musk said in a press conference shortly after the landing, “we need to achieve full and rapid reusability.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Every time SpaceX tries to send a rocket to space and subsequently try to land it back down to earth, I want to catch it live. And I have the past few instances. It’s like watching the future of the human race unfold in front of my eyes. The past few times it sent cargo into space and tried to land on an ocean barge, <a href="http://www.wired.com/2016/03/spacexs-rocket-loses-battle-robot-boat/" rel="nofollow">the landing part wasn’t so successful</a>.</p>
<p>That’s why finally nailing it this time around is so exciting: being able to reuse a $60 million rocket enhances our chances of being an interplanetary species. It reduces the cost of space flight by a magnitude, and maneuvering a 25-story tall rocket into a safe landing is a pre-requisite in sending humans to destinations literally out of this world.</p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lEr9cPpuAx8"></iframe>
<p>While SpaceX’s business model relies on missions commissioned by NASA, other government space agencies, and commercial satellite companies, its founder <a href="http://twitter.com/elonmusk" rel="nofollow">Elon Musk</a> started the company with one mission: to send mankind to Mars. Turns out it’s pretty damn difficult; it actually <em>is</em> rocket science after all. But more and more, especially after Falcon 9’s successful drone barge landing, it’s proving to be something that <em>might</em> be possible.</p>
<p>And I think, beyond the missions and the landings, what makes this incredibly more moving is that they are making the concept of space cool again. Such ambitious, grandiose, and technologically challenging projects give us permission to dream really really big things, no matter how (literally) unreachable they seem to be. And this kind of hellbent optimism, <a href="http://www.wired.com/2015/06/spacexs-rocket-exploded-got-land-barge/" rel="nofollow">despite the multiple gut-wrenching setbacks</a>, is exactly what we need as a people in order to create the future we desire.</p>
<p><strong>Mistakes will be made. Risks will be met. Doubt will creep in. But a unified vision, strong execution, and an unwavering hunger to learn again and again both from what we get wrong and right is the only way to make what others thought was impossible to actually happen.</strong></p>
<p>And that’s exactly what SpaceX has set out to do from the very beginning, throughout the rest of the year, and perhaps even after we reach Mars:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>By the end of the year, Musk expects the company to be launching a rocket every two to three weeks, getting better data on what makes a landing successful or unsuccessful every time. “I think we’ll be successful when it becomes boring,” says Musk. That means like, airplane boring. Ultimately, a successful landing should make zero news.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>For the full webcast in all its glory, watch below:</p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7pUAydjne5M"></iframe>
<p><strong>BONUS:</strong> Here’s the first time a Falcon 9 successfully landed back on land on December 21, 2015:</p>
<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ANv5UfZsvZQ"></iframe><br></p>
<p><em>You can follow me on Twitter <a href="http://twitter.com/thebadprince" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</em></p>
tag:thebadprince.svbtle.com,2014:Post/kobe2016-03-26T13:58:58-07:002016-03-26T13:58:58-07:00What Kobe Has Taught Me: Greatness is Achieved Through The Simple Things<p><a href="https://svbtleusercontent.com/pzb4latjg8wczg.jpg" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://svbtleusercontent.com/pzb4latjg8wczg_small.jpg" alt="kobe.jpg"></a></p>
<p>Kobe Bryant is now entering the final 10 games of his storied career. Twenty years in professional basketball coming to a close. </p>
<p>Being one of the most prolific athletes of all-time known for his relentlessness and work ethic on and off the court, it’s not a big surprise he has amassed tons of wisdom when it comes to the game. And as most things, it’s not just about the game itself, but the approach to any craft in general. One <a href="http://www.nba.com/lakers/news/160325_kobetranscribe" rel="nofollow">recent interview</a> perfectly encapsulates his perspective on what it takes to be really good at whatever it is you do:</p>
<h2 id="when-he-was-asked-if-he-was-surprised-by-seco_2">When he was asked if he was surprised by second-year player Julius Randle’s first career triple-double: <a class="head_anchor" href="#when-he-was-asked-if-he-was-surprised-by-seco_2" rel="nofollow">#</a>
</h2><blockquote>
<p>It’s just a matter of him getting a feel for the NBA game, and where he sees actions take place before they even take place. <strong>That just comes from experience and studying.</strong></p>
</blockquote><h2 id="when-he-was-asked-regarding-rookie-d39angelo_2">When he was asked regarding rookie D'Angelo Russell’s basketball IQ: <a class="head_anchor" href="#when-he-was-asked-regarding-rookie-d39angelo_2" rel="nofollow">#</a>
</h2><blockquote>
<p>There’s really no such thing as basketball IQ. It’s not an innate thing. <strong>It comes from watching the game over and over, and thinking about the game with a certain amount of curiosity.</strong> That’s where I think the IQ comes from.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I find his response to both questions regarding the young players in his team fascinating. He’s among one the most celebrated athletes of the last generation (and of course, not without controversy and vitriol from fans in those two decades), but to him, becoming better has less to do with natural abilities and more about <em>educating yourself and piling up your experience</em>. It’s about adding these two and doing it all over again day in and day out. This is what he’s done for twenty years, and continues to do until his very last one.</p>
<h2 id="when-asked-about-how-he-deals-with-injuries_2">When asked about how he deals with injuries: <a class="head_anchor" href="#when-asked-about-how-he-deals-with-injuries_2" rel="nofollow">#</a>
</h2><blockquote>
<p>It’s experience. Once you realize you can play with it and it’s not as bad as you thought it’s going to be, it’s fine. But the key is pushing your body through it. <strong>Once you go through it, then you know. But if you never push through it, you have no idea. You’re just always intimidated by it.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here, he makes the case that only by pushing through something is how you reduce the fear. You can become comfortable with uncomfortable situations, including those that include harder obstacles, whether it be pain, pressure, or anything else, the more experience you have with it. <strong>This mentality can be applied to virtually everything we’re afraid of—something is only scary when you don’t really know what you’re dealing with. But by tackling it head on, it becomes less intimidating. The fear gets blunted because it’s just another thing you’re already familiar with.</strong></p>
<h2 id="when-asked-on-whether-shooting-airballs-in-th_2">When asked on whether shooting airballs in the playoffs as a rookie played a large role in his development: <a class="head_anchor" href="#when-asked-on-whether-shooting-airballs-in-th_2" rel="nofollow">#</a>
</h2><blockquote>
<p>It’s probably more lore. <strong>My reaction to that was a pretty basic one, which was: I need to change my training regimen. I need to get stronger.</strong> My shot felt great. I didn’t have the legs to reach the basket. You come from a high school season when I played like 35 games to playing that in two months (in the NBA). So that was one change I made: the program. Then I came back the next season. I was much stronger; legs were stronger. Second half in ’98, I still tailed off. I was like, ‘OK, now I have to readjust again.’ <strong>So for me, it was big just because I had to learn how to build an NBA body. For everybody else, it was more the overcoming of failure.</strong> That’s tough as an 18-year-old; you fail like that in front of millions of people. Now it’s like, ‘Damn, that is a big deal.’</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In hindsight, we can certainly marvel over the adversity that athletes go through in their career. It makes for great documentaries. But when he shot <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSe80qSgXVA" rel="nofollow">three air balls in a row during his rookie year with his team’s season on the balance</a>, he looked at it not from an emotional perspective, but from a logical one: he needed his legs to get stronger. That was it. And that echoes his response with every flaw he found in his game: to him it just meant he needed adjustment. And you can do that by studying and training.</p>
<hr>
<p>Kobe is my favorite athlete of all-time not just because I’m a die-hard Laker fan and not just because he won five championships. More than anything, it’s his mentality which is: <em>Take away everything else and go back to first principles</em>. Need to see the game better as it happens? Study film. Need to play with injury? Find ways to be comfortable with it without making it worse. Shots were short from the three-point line? Work out your legs. It’s finding the root of the problem, and figuring out how to fix it. There’s really not much to it. Everything else is extra.</p>
<p>And perhaps what’s even more admirable is what he’ll be doing after his last game on April 13th:</p>
<blockquote class="short">
<p>The biggest challenge for me is waking up the next morning and working out, because if I don’t start immediately it’s a slippery slope.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Intensity and the regimen might change, sure. But aside from that, nothing different from what he’s always done: work out.</p>
<p><strong>If there’s one thing that I’ve taken away from watching him for twenty years, it’s this: don’t overthink things. Find what you need to improve, study it with curiosity and enthusiasm, and work hard on being good at it.</strong> Only you can give yourself the education and experience you need. It’s about learning and applying what you learned, and doing it all over again. And the more you interact with something, the less intimidating it seems and the more proficient you become with it. </p>
<p>Whether it’s basketball or something else, the same principles apply. What most people think as natural ability is just good old fashioned hard work on a consistent basis that here and there, may lead to moments of greatness. </p>
tag:thebadprince.svbtle.com,2014:Post/the-formula2016-03-23T13:08:32-07:002016-03-23T13:08:32-07:00The Formula<blockquote>
<p>If you’re looking for a formula for greatness, the closest we’ll ever get I think is this: consistency driven by a deep love of the work.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>— Maria Popova</strong></p>
tag:thebadprince.svbtle.com,2014:Post/self-belief2016-03-16T22:43:56-07:002016-03-16T22:43:56-07:00Self-Belief<blockquote>
<p><span style="font-size:21px;">Without self-belief nothing can be accomplished. With it, nothing is impossible. …With liberation comes the knowledge that nothing is really very important in the lives of men; nothing is as terrifying as the fear itself. And from that, paradoxically, comes self-belief—a belief that anything is possible.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>— Felix Dennis</strong></p>
tag:thebadprince.svbtle.com,2014:Post/cruise-automation2016-03-11T10:25:22-08:002016-03-11T10:25:22-08:00From Nothing to a Working Autonomous Vehicle in 3.5 Months<p><a href="https://svbtleusercontent.com/kro2ej23pushg.jpg" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://svbtleusercontent.com/kro2ej23pushg_small.jpg" alt="cruise.jpg"></a></p>
<p>Today, GM acquires self-driving startup <a href="http://www.getcruise.com/" rel="nofollow">Cruise Automation</a> for a rumored more than $1 billion.</p>
<p>Dan Primack via <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/gm-buying-self-driving-tech-startup-for-more-than-1-billion/" rel="nofollow">Fortune</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Cruise Automation had raised over $18 million in venture capital funding, most recently at a post-money valuation of around $90 million. Investors include Spark Capital, Maven Ventures, Founder Collective, and Y Combinator.</p>
<p>The three-year old company is best known for having created an aftermarket “kit” that allows buyers to convert certain types of cars―namely Audi A4 and S4 models―into autonomous vehicles for highway driving. It But GM appears to be more interested in integrating Cruise’s technology into its original manufacturing process.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I was watching <a href="https://twitter.com/justinkan" rel="nofollow">Justin Kan</a>’s <a href="https://www.snapchat.com/add/justinkan" rel="nofollow">Snapchat</a> story and he was saying that <a href="http://www.getcruise.com/" rel="nofollow">Cruise</a>’s founder, previous Justin.TV/SocialCam/Twitch co-founder <a href="https://twitter.com/kvogt" rel="nofollow">Kyle Vogt</a>, went from <strong>basically nothing to a working prototype in about 3.5 months with very little experience in autonomous vehicles prior to starting the company.</strong></p>
<p>And today, three years after the company’s founding, they were acquired by General Motors for a rumored “north of $1 billion” to help with their move in the self-driving space. I’m sure there’s a lot more to the story, but it doesn’t take away from the will and determination to make something incredibly complex a reality in a short amount of time. And that determination paid off in a big way, ushering in a new future for a company that’s more than 100 years old.</p>
<p>If that’s not impressive and inspiring, I’m not sure what is.</p>
<hr>
<h2 id="update_2">Update: <a class="head_anchor" href="#update_2" rel="nofollow">#</a>
</h2>
<p>Sam Altman, president of YC, wrote in a <a href="http://blog.samaltman.com/hard-tech-is-back" rel="nofollow">blog post</a> regarding Cruise’s acquisition:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There has never been a better time to take a long-term view and use technology to solve major problems, and we’ve never needed the solutions more than we do right now.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Amidst all the news of doom and gloom in the tech space, Cruise’s story provides excitement, enthusiasm, and hope for those who are willing to work hard towards a better future. At the end of the day, it belongs to those who hustle.</p>
tag:thebadprince.svbtle.com,2014:Post/the-biggest-challenge-in-product-design2016-02-19T18:38:43-08:002016-02-19T18:38:43-08:00The Biggest Challenge in Product Design<p><a href="https://svbtleusercontent.com/33caqlxtx8uxw.jpg" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://svbtleusercontent.com/33caqlxtx8uxw_small.jpg" alt="mtsthelens.jpg"></a></p>
<p>I was listening to an <a href="https://blog.intercom.io/podcast-mike-davidson-product-design/" rel="nofollow">interview with former Twitter VP of Design Mike Davidson on the Intercom podcast</a> and it made me fire away a tweetstorm. </p>
<p>It had me thinking that the best products have no choice but to evolve over time, and having to navigate all the different obstacles comes with the territory. That can be a growth challenge, a revenue challenge, a competitor challenge, and often it’s actually a first principle “what does our product even do?” challenge.</p>
<p>So with these in mind, I wondered what I thought was the single biggest challenge when it comes to designing products of any kind. And what I came up with is actually pretty basic, and often times something that’s easily forgettable because it’s not the sexiest or even the most intuitive to ask. </p>
<p>Here’s my own take on it:</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">Arguably the biggest fundamental challenge in product design isn’t the tech or visuals—it’s the ability to question your own assumptions.</p>— Jomi Cubol (@TheBadPrince) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBadPrince/status/700748037367267332" rel="nofollow">February 19, 2016</a>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">Be dogmatic about the vision, but be receptive towards the path. Many hills and unknown terrains. It’s about inching closer to the best one.</p>— Jomi Cubol (@TheBadPrince) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBadPrince/status/700748499558641664" rel="nofollow">February 19, 2016</a>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">You’ll face product choices that will be very difficult to make. And there’s no formula: it’s grounding it in both evidence and gut feeling.</p>— Jomi Cubol (@TheBadPrince) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBadPrince/status/700750146657607680" rel="nofollow">February 19, 2016</a>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">And I’m learning that the best ones constantly face this. But they plough through. And if they’re wrong, they change course and keep going.</p>— Jomi Cubol (@TheBadPrince) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBadPrince/status/700750317177036801" rel="nofollow">February 19, 2016</a>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">External noise is just noise including your own doubts and fears. Do what you think is best for the product and everything else will follow.</p>— Jomi Cubol (@TheBadPrince) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBadPrince/status/700750910079660034" rel="nofollow">February 19, 2016</a>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>Photo: <a href="http://vsco.co/jonathanhouse/media/53779068726708a30f8b497f" rel="nofollow">Jonathan House</a></p>