I think what’s going on behind the verbal sleight of hand here, is focusing on the process (quest) instead of the outcome (goal). It’s the difference between doing a thing and having done a thing. I might enjoy having written a book, but I don’t think I would enjoy writing a book. And I don’t think calling it a quest instead of a goal would make much difference
I think about this a lot. I think my dad was more goal oriented and I’m more process oriented. I see every day spent working toward a goal as a valuable step toward it, while I think he tried to always shorten the path to reach his goals, and ended up not ever achieving them because of it.
As an example, I do car restoration as a hobby. It’s a big, big task to basically dismantle a car, fix body issues, rebuild the engine and transmission, clean up all the parts, and put it back together. Looking at the entire task outside of it, seems almost impossible to do, but I almost never think about the end of the work. I just think about the next thing I need to do.
I think marathon runners do something similar, or so I’ve heard anecdotally.
“...it's like this. Sometimes, when you've a very long street ahead of you, you think how terribly long it is and feel sure you'll never get it swept. And then you start to hurry. You work faster and faster and every time you look up there seems to be just as much left to sweep as before, and you try even harder, and you panic, and in the end you're out of breath and have to stop--and still the street stretches away in front of you. That's not the way to do it.
You must never think of the whole street at once, understand? You must only concentrate on the next step, the next breath, the next stroke of the broom, and the next, and the next. Nothing else.
That way you enjoy your work, which is important, because then you make a good job of it. And that's how it ought to be.
And all at once, before you know it, you find you've swept the whole street clean, bit by bit. what's more, you aren't out of breath. That's important, too...”
― Michael Ende, Momo
I think of it as scaling a mountain. When you're at the base the mountain looks imposing and out of reach. As you begin the climb it's hard work and you don't know your way around and feel lost, and every time you look up the mountain remains as imposing as before. But then you begin to make progress, and the mountain begins to seem smaller. Now you can finish the climb because it doesn't seem like that much more work -- you've done the truly hard part, which was: getting started.
Admittedly when I'm at the base I take my time getting started. But once I'm started, I can power through.
As a counter point, I've also seen plenty people too focused on doing every little step up to some imagined standards that they never get to complete anything — basically, life intervenes and they got to leave with nothing really done at all.
I am personally goal motivated: I like achieving and building things (I enjoy the process in as much as I got the better of it :)). When things are complex, I come up with smaller goals that are on the path to getting the big thing done, all the while thinking how these things fit together.
This has made me great at coming up with iterative steps where each step brings value: even if I stop at any one point, I have done something useful.
In your example, I would probably dismantle the car enough to get the engine out and rebuilt and back in, and then go back to it sometime in the future to work on other stuff, all the while keeping a functioning car as I am rebuilding it.
> This has made me great at coming up with iterative steps where each step brings value: even if I stop at any one point, I have done something useful.
This is really just getting caught up on semantics, and what you've described is essentially the same as a 'quest mindset'. The goal vs quest mindsets are basically waterfall vs (lowercase a) agile mindsets. In the former you risk building something you don't want or under-allocate resources to achieving it, in the latter, you've realized that you've misestimated what the final outcome will be or should be, and know that there will be a discovery process alongside development.
> basically, life intervenes and they got to leave with nothing really done at all.
And perhaps there is no sense in that journey being 'complete' as there's always some way to improve things. But I think the caution here on the 'quest' mindset, is to still have something functional early on – "Release early, and release often" as it were. But this caution also holds for the 'goal' mindset, perhaps moreso, as there's a higher risk of misunderstanding what 'complete' looks like, or all the side-'goals' you never anticipated, and becoming dismayed when you've found yourself settling in on a loong quest anyway.
> This is really just getting caught up on semantics, and what you've described is essentially the same as a 'quest mindset'. The goal vs quest mindsets are basically waterfall vs (lowercase a) agile mindsets.
But most people describe the difference as "enjoying the process" vs "enjoying the result". I enjoy the result, I only come up with multiple "results" along the way to an "end goal".
Instead of seeing it as a difference in semantics, this is probably how "goal-oriented" people can learn to achieve big things. As in, everybody can get there, and really, this means to me that you can be agile whether you are goal oriented or process/quest oriented.
There's a lot to unpack here. But firstly, "enjoying the process" and "enjoying the result" aren't really in binary opposition. If one weren't to 'enjoy the process' but only 'enjoy the result' they would be working in desperation to reach the end. If one only 'enjoyed the process' they would never finish anything, because completing would be the end of the joy. Porque no los dos?
I'm certain that most people that 'enjoy the process' also enjoy completing things, and are dismayed when there's a trail of half-finished works cluttering their mental (and physical) space. Similarly, I couldn't imagine someone who doesn't 'enjoy the process' ever embarking on anything that has no external motivation (e.g., a paycheck, prestige, etc.). But if we imagine them to actually be in binary opposition, and I had to pick between a life of 'quiet desperation' and eternal enjoyment, I'd probably opt for the latter. And this is as someone who's spent much of my professional career in anguish at the process and desperate to reach the goal to feel that sweet dopamine hit (and a lot of unfinished personal projects in my wake).
> this is probably how "goal-oriented" people can learn to achieve big things
The implication here – again – is that "process enjoyers" don't achieve big things/don't complete things, and perhaps also that "goal enjoyers" fail to achieve less often, and I'm not sure what that assertion is based on.
Perhaps an alleged 'goal-focused' mind is more willing to indulge in a lot of unpleasant work to reach a goal, but then a 'process enjoyer' can enjoy the work instead and also reach the goal. I would say the latter – 'the pig in shit' – is more likely to reach their goals. But perhaps you are under the belief that the 'process enjoyer' is less likely to do things that most people find unpleasant. Once again, I'm not sure what that belief would be based on, but it could be true.
> But firstly, "enjoying the process" and "enjoying the result" aren't really in binary opposition.
Obviously: I assumed we do not need to be explicit that these are not the only options, but that everyone would be somewhere on a continuum between the two extremes, and even then, not all the time in the same spot either (eg depending on the motivation, circumstances etc).
My argument was a counterpoint to someone claiming how "their dad never completed anything because they were goal oriented compared to them" (paraphrasing) to point out that both can achieve things, but also both fail to achieve things.
So your rethoric seems misplaced: I am arguing none of the things you are implying.
> So your rethoric seems misplaced: I am arguing none of the things you are implying.
I was mostly seizing on this line:
> this is probably how "goal-oriented" people can learn to achieve big things
I made the inference here that you meant process-oriented people are, at least, less likely to achieve big things, and that was my mistake. But it lead me on an interesting train of thought, perhaps even doubling down on my assertion: that actually being process-minded is not only as likely but actually more likely to compel someone to achieve great things.
I imagine most people (not necessarily you) look at a Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or an Elon Musk and go, "They must be really goal-driven". But I couldn't imagine them turning up to work everyday and dread the meetings, talking to staff, and actually doing the work. Most people see this as the daily grind, but for people who enjoy showing up and getting to work, they are more likely to achieve great things.
That's of course not to say they don't savor seeing a rocket launch or something, but I bet they don't dwell on it either. They'll be straight back into the process. It's also not to say that those that enjoy only the goal can't achieve great things, but I'd imagine it would be a lot harder to navigate the 'development hell' that often accompanies such pursuits.
> ...being process-minded is not only as likely but actually more likely to compel someone to achieve great things.
This is the point that I was originally disputing :)
And it is where I disagree: I find the "achieving great things" requires breaking things up into smaller pieces (agile, or engineer mindset), and it's orthogonal to your goal vs process character.
Basically, my counter is that just like badly managed[$] goal-oriented people might suffer through a long process to the goal (and thus give up), badly managed process-oriented people might enjoy the ride too much to not care about the end result. A common saying of "work smart, not hard" kinda supports that too.
[$] I am using "managed" here liberally: they could be self-managed, for instance.
What you need to do to achieve both small but especially big things is to be smart and manage yourself well along with having enough motivation to do it.
And the source of motivation is where I think the only difference is: neither goal nor process does warrant one having enough of it, but they are sources of it for different people.
And again, goal-oriented people do not necessarily dread all of the process, it's just that they get most of their motivation from achieving things. And certainly process-oriented people enjoy achieving things, even if they get motivated with the road as well.
> This is the point that I was originally disputing :)
I did suspect we were at odds with each other somehow!
> requires breaking things up into smaller pieces (agile, or engineer mindset), and it's orthogonal to your goal vs process character
Agreed.
> And again, goal-oriented people do not necessarily dread all of the process
I think much of what I'm saying is that achieving 'great' things probably entails a long road. Management style aside, I think loving the process would greatly improve your odds of going the distance without burnout during the inevitable development hell (e.g., tasks that take longer than anticipated, unanticipated tasks, unanticipated hurdles, etc.) of doing something novel or overwhelming in scale – which I think all 'great' things would have one or both of those characters. But I'm happy to agree to disagree here, and I thank you for the insightful discussion.
Not at all. Yak shaving is getting caught up in all the surrounding, sometimes supporting tasks, so you never get to the main task.
Yak shaving is spending time finding the ultimate editor, choosing between syntax highlighters and schemes, configuring git, et c., so you never actually get around to write any code. That is different from wrenching the last nanosecond of optimisation from some not particularly central part of the code.
It's not yak shaving. Yak shaving is (possibly) recursive explosion of seemingly unrelated tasks which are required to complete the original task. The comment fits description of a maladaptive perfectionism.
Personally I feel like some things that have clear chunks of work are best goal-oriented like “reading through this book” while nebulous goals require a process-oriented method of thinking.
That said, I don’t think you should really worry about that distinction.
My method of getting things done is a 3 step:
1. Constant checking in on whether I am happy at my progress. If I am, keep doing what I’m doing.
2. If I’m not, try a completely different approach entirely. Abandon the old approach for a week or however long is reasonable.
3. If I fail to improve or I failed to actually put in place the different approach (saying and doing are different things), I need a shock to the system. Moving to a brand new city-kind-of-shock. Throwing away half your belongings-kind-of-shock.
The key is frequently checking if you are happy with progress and realizing that if you are not, you need a change. And you need to be willing to try changes constantly.
Have any of you here considered that you simply need help? More people working alongside you? Being able to form a structure (such as a company or decentralized DAO) with responsibilities?
In my experience, when you are procrastinating, that's your subconscious telling you that you need help. Maybe you don't have the skills, or the time, to undertake the thing. Your developer brain says it'll take 1 hour and it takes 2 days.
You are right on! Teamwork outside of paid work is underrated. So many solo projects/goals/quests stall when a person with a different skill set could've made all the difference and helped bring it to completion. I think in-person community is best for this, although Internet strangers can certainly become friends and do fun projects together.
Marathon runner here. Spot on. A marathon is near impossible if you don’t like running. Inevitable if you like running.
Marathon training is actually the framework around which I do all “quests” now. If you enjoy the process, anything is possible. The key is finding a way to enjoy the process.
I’ve extended it to several areas I didn’t find very fun prior. Language learning and job hunting in particular.
I actually wrote my first blog post on this very subject[1].
Warning, it’s quite verbose and not the best. There’s a TL;DR.
In my experience, (This is a Mechanical Elves take on it (I studied Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, Danzan Ryu, Small Circle, and my Professor Larry Cary said to me one session:
"The movements I am teaching you awaken dormant brain circuitry. When you do these movements, all the old Masters are with you"
That was the moment it really clicked for me.
Later, Soke Hatsumi was quoted in the infamous "Understand? Good. Play!" book -- my favorite quote:
"I am teaching you to wield a sword, even if you have no arms!"
--
The reason is that these two statements allowed me to see what the true nature of my Joy of Movement truely was: I was able to see the Principles of Movement flow through me - (we call this The Mode) - and it was that feeling that was being fully present is what I sought and I feel thats the nature of Mastery of any craft.
---
@sebg:
You'd really love this Scientest's interview:
"Things like 'YOU' - that took the Universe Billions of years to generate 'YOU' - you have a lot of Time embedded in you..."
I've run a few marathons. I'm not fast. I haven't done it in a while. But I think I'd like to do it again.
You're not wrong, I'm going to quibble a bit because I have a slightly different perspective that might be helpful.
First, a little context. For me a marathon is all about training. That first day it might only be 50 steps. A few weeks or months in, I can go a mile or 3. Then it's just awful. Every little weak tendon and muscle is crying out. Walk for a bit then get back to running. After the early bit, I get 3-4 miles into a run, then have to decide, 3-4 miles back home or 6 to just finish the run.
I think that's the critical point. am I just going to walk home? That's an option. but I've gone so far. Walk a lot and just finish the damn route.
And that's kind of the point. A lot of comments are arguing about semantics, and I get that. But the point is just get through the bullshit however you can. It's ok to kind of hobble along. Stop by the bar and have a beer or three and make it home. There's no shame in that. Finishing the loop, however you can, is still finishing the loop.
Me, personally, getting past that critical point, embracing the suck. That's kinda the point. I hit that miserable point. I keep moving forward however I can. Whatever stupid bullshit comes up, you (I) just get through it. Somehow. it doesn't matter how. And then there's a bit of a release. Maybe just glide through the last few miles. Maybe rub some dirt on it and walk home. It doesn't really matter because I complete the loop. I sort of shed the vision of what it might be, and learn what it really is. And that's super helpful.
Mark Twain wrote life on the Mississippi, and wrote a lot about how cool it would be to be a riverboat pilot. The beautiful pink sky, the ripples on the water. And there's sort of a heartbreaking transition when he learns the pink sky means a storm is coming. the ripples mean there's a sandbar. In his unknowing dream, everything he loved about it was a disaster waiting to strike. He learned in his own way.
For me, there's a joy and romance to running a marathon that was completely unlike what I thought it was before I started.
So anyway, maybe the subtle shift from goal to quest is enough to help some people embrace the suck. Nothing is what you think it is without doing it. there are parts that are awful. if you can get through it, you'll get nothing you hoped for. but maybe the change of perspective is enough.
I honestly don’t disagree with you. I too experience “the suck”. But the good parts of runs make the suck worth it. It’s just a roll of the dice. You never know if it’s gonna suck.
Also I feel you on the taking breaks part. There’s no rules. Nothing beats sitting on the curb eating some junk and drinking some Gatorade mid-run.
sitting on the curb drinking gatorade is what it's all about. you, or I, just sort of accept that it's miserable. but survivable. It's a thing we can do.
Yes. Personally, I enjoy the incremental problem solving perhaps too much — getting the last 10% of a project done before moving to the next is a challenge.
That said, and being aware of this trait, I started something that is a huge project (building a sail boat) for which I was completely unprepared (no experience, no tools). Each step was a challenge, but until the quest was finished meant nothing. Those last few steps were torture for me but getting it in the water and sailing it for the first time (and second, etc.) was amazing.
It’s the same thrill when my software gets used, and I now have renewed motivation to get some projects across the finish line and in people’s hands.
Is this the thinking behind the statement it's the journey, not the destination? Enjoy the journey because as soon as you reach your destination, you're going to embark on another journey!
Great perspective. I’m building a small wooden sailboat, and find I get demoralized and either rush or stop when I think about having a finished boat. Better to just think about the very next task.
Ultimately building a boat is for someone that likes building boats, not someone that just wants to sail… restoring a car is for someone that likes working on cars, not someone that just wants a finished car to drive.
There's a lot of truth to what you say. Some of my favorite people are process oriented!
I'm very, very goal oriented. I'll eagerly sacrifice process to get towards a goal. I find this works well with my work, SRE. Testing and redefining processes :D
This distinction really helps me realize how/why I get overwhelmed with projects of a certain size and go towards bisection
Interesting. As a platform engineer, practically everything I do at work has wide reaching implications so I really have no choice but to figure out how to break projects down into safe chunks that inevitably makes the project bigger and longer to complete. But those chunks grant verifiability and stability all the way through. Being a platform eng has taught me how to be process oriented.
I also think it's about the whimsicality of it. Focusing on the process sounds so rational and cognitive. The issue is that it is devoid of feeling. A quest makes me feel something! Adventure! Let's go! There'll be dragons, there'll be riches and there'll be friendship! I need to seek out like minded individuals, I need to conquer my challenges, I need to go for the rewards that make me feel eternally rich!
That's what I feel when I think about a quest. Sure, you could say it's all good advice too, but that's just rational. Emotions move me, thoughts move me only a little. If I can get that advice (conquer challenges, seek peers/mentors, go for what I want) by thinking about it emotionally that's much more powerful than thinking about it rationally.
The rational understanding != the emotional understanding
Yeah, and also a quest seems like something that might be different every time, where a process is a formalized cookie-cutter pipeline, or at least that is what people associate with it in the context of software development.
When each thing you do is a unique journey, that's exciting. There may be obstacles to overcome, there may be learning opportunities, there may be empowerment in making your own decisions along the way.
Unfortunately this mindset does not satisfy the incessant (but futile) need for predictability that most managers have.
I just can't wait for companies to rebrand "sprints" to "quests" and "projects" to "campaigns". Story points naturally convert to experience points. Crunch time death march could then be "final boss fight".
I think I slip into this mode automatically. As soon as I think of a "goal," I immediately ask myself what kinds of habits a person who accomplished that goal would likely have. Then I find the lowest possible resistance way to have that habit from this day forward.
Like, say I want to hike/climb some specific set of mountains. Great. What kinds of habits does a person who hikes all those mountains have? Well, they're probably someone who exercises every day. I can, as of today, become "someone who exercises every day, no matter what," if I set my requirement as "only one minute per day."
Habits grow on their own. I don't think it's really necessary to stage them. Once you see yourself as a certain kind of person, you just become that kind of person. And before you know it, since you're just like a person who hikes all those mountains, you end up being someone who has hiked all the mountains.
It's also the only effective way I've found to deal with my fear of success when it comes to big goals. I don't set them. I just decide to become the kind of person who would accomplish them, and by then, it doesn't feel like some impressive accomplishment. It just feels like a normal thing someone like me would do.
It's great that you slip into this mode automatically.
For me, the reframing of "goal" to "quest" helps enormously with this change of mode. A "goal" is something I hope/want to achieve in future - but today I'm busy with day-to-day chores etc. A "quest" however is something you are on. So if I'm on a quest to do X, of course I need to do something toward it every day.
For some reason I have a hard time with "quest" because it seems to have an endpoint. I'm not "on a quest to hike all the mountains." I'm just the kind of person for whom that kind of thing eventually happens because it's normal.
It very well might be my "fear of success" issue though. I don't have a fear of being different than I was before. That slips in under "part of the normal process of growth and change."
But being a person who's on a quest? Who might eventually achieve the thing? That lands differently, and in a way that prevents me from actually doing it.
I think my successes have to slide in under the radar so I don't sabotage them.
I think that another aspect of this verbal difference is that quests are meaningful because they inherently possess some level of difficulty and adventure. Taking on a quest means that you have a mindset with room for stumbling and getting back up and that you will eventually overcome. Focussing on a goal may sooner lead to frustration and giving up.
It is a fail/succeed mindset rather than a play mindset I imagine. I definitely feel a difference between a chore and a game. That said not all chores are easily turned into games. But seeking games over chores probably leads to a happier time.
I think it's reverse causation. Motivating and meaningful activities feel like quests. Boring but necessary activities that we procrastinate on make us reach for "goal-setting" as a cure for the procrastination.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could somehow feel intrinsic motivation and meaning for the boring stuff too, so that even cleaning the toilet felt like part of a grand adventure?
But you need to think farther. Let's use writing a book as a stand in for other things, e.g. being able to code, playing an instrument, mastering embedded electronics programming, you name it:
The person who enjoys¹ writing a book and wants to finish them will likely become better at writing books than the person who just wrote a book to cross it off their bucket list.
There is also people who enjoy the process of writing so much, that the outcome literally doesn't matter anymore and they don't have any ambition to finish anything.
In reality most people who achieve great things have both a way/process/quest and many destinations/outcomes/goals along the way and the two things have to be somewhat in balance. Thst balance can differ for different people.
When people say you should focus on the way, not on the destination what they mean is: Don't be the person who just writes a book to cross it off the bucket list, while hating every second of the process and learning nothing from having done it.
¹: The word "enjoy" doesn't have to mean they feel good doing it, it just means there is an urge to do this versus something else
It's cheap and short-lived satisfaction. Any seasoned author is not going to feel good if they haven't been working at something new for awhile. We might project that it would make us feel good in terms of projecting an identity (for validation), but the rules are different when operating under imagination which necessarily suggests a divergence from the current reality, where you might not get much validation either from yourself or others (because you don't do anything)
Another way I've encountered this is performance vs results. Performance is the things you do that you believe will lead to results. Results aren't always in your control (especially in competitive environments), but performance absolutely is. It's a lot easier to feel you are getting somewhere when you focus on things that you control.
This is something I often have to instill in new software developers and occasionally to remind myself. We default to seeing the thing we want to build and the plan that we imagine for doing so. As we proceed, every bump and deviation from the plan feels like a set back. Every wrong turn and rewritten piece of code feels like a waste, a mistake. But in fact, it's all part of the process. Trying that avenue that turned out not to be what you wanted was a necessary part of learning what it is you did want. As The Pragmatic Programmer said, "Prepare to throw one away ... you'll have to anyway."
I make it clear that at any moment a plan isn't absolute because we can't possibly know what the future will hold. Instead, a plan is simply a direction to start heading. As we try and we learn, we update our understanding and we update our plan, heading in a different direction that hopefully brings us closer to our goals. If we think of a deviation from the plan as a failure to plan, we punish ourselves for a lack of omniscience - something we can hardly expect to live up to.
That same mindset helps a lot in understanding daily life too. When we see people make mistakes driving, or large construction projects going over budget, or social policies causing unanticipated problems, we are quick to blame people for not knowing better, but how can we expect them to know with certainty what will happen as the result of every decision they make? We simply do our best with the resources we have available and as events unfold we continue to do our best to steer ourselves to our desired outcomes. People shouldn't be punished for the outcome if they made a good choice given the resources they had. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that.
So the verbal sleight of hand is working as intended.
If you are not going to enjoy the process of writing a book, only the outcome of having written a book, chances are writing a book isn't a good use of your time.
I am one who would love to have written a book (goal) and I don’t love writing (quest). I think writers love the act of writing and that’s how they get to the goal of writing a book.
Theyre differentiating goals from quests, where goals are daily minutia, get a haircut, something you'd suggest you need to do this week, where as quests are bigger loftier goals, what would you do in the next two years? Learn to fly a plane.
The quests are still goals they just want to categorise it apart from meaningless low value goals.
Another part of it seems to be the approach, breaking it down into blocks and creating a plan to achieve it in your currently available time instead of putting it off.
> And I don’t think calling it a quest instead of a goal would make much difference
Well, I of course haven't done it yet, but as one of those people who (stupidly, in a "the definition of insanity is doing things the same way and expecting a different outcome"-sort-of-way) makes New Year's Resolutions every year, and gets mildly depressed when I fail to reach them, there is something about this blog post that I loved and really clicked with me.
There are 3 reasons I like the framing of quest vs goals:
1. As you say, it focuses on the process instead of the outcome. I've of course known that this is how you're supposed to achieve goals (step-by-step I'd say), but something about the word "quest" makes it more real to me, and maybe even more desirable. I think perhaps that even though there are tons of painful things that happen during a "quest", they seem more connected with a "righteous outcome", vs. the laundry list of steps that I think of for most of the "goals" I want to attain.
2. I don't deal with unexpected curve balls well, and one reason I fail to reach a lot of my goals is I get dejected when things don't go according to plan. But I think the framing of "quest", where basically curve balls are 90% of what happens, makes it easier in my mind. It's like I'm actually planning and expecting the unexpected, instead of getting annoyed when the unexpected pops up. I really like it.
3. Finally, and though it may seem trivial or silly, the visualization of a "quest" for me is just something that seems, well, more adventurous than drudgery.
In any case, this is one of the first HN posts on self-improvement that I really liked and clicked with me (usually I roll my eyes at what feels like "survivorship bias" advice). I'll see how it goes.
...it is written by a psychiatrist about the practice of Kaizen, where you take absurdly small steps to reach your goals. So small that you can't fail. And these build on themselves. He covers your exact case. People who make New Year's resolutions that fail after a month or two. One example was a woman who needed to get exercise for health reasons. Previous exercise attempts have failed. So the doctor prescribes her to march in-place for 60 seconds every day, when she was normally watching TV. Anyway, it snowballs, as she realizes she can do more and more, and then starts to enjoy it. It is a short, inexpensive, easy read that I recommend.
“Quest” is an odd word choice for making this point. To me “quest” very strongly implies having a clear singular goal, whereas e.g. “journey” does not necessarily imply having any particular goal in mind.
While you are right, a different way to look at a same thing can produce breakthroughs, like exercise, you just exercise right? But if you gamify it, it can make it easier to endure and repeat
It's because you ain't that guy. Ideas are in the air and theoretically they will eventually happen, the question is are you going to be that guy or you'd rather watch someone else make it happen.
