> In the US giving any form of peanuts to babies is attempted murder, in Israel peanut puffs (Bamba) are among the first foods offered.

This is not the case, peanut puffs are a common early solid food in the US. Before that there are allergen mixes you can add to milk/formula.

All the recommendations I saw when my kid was born said early exposure to allergens is good to reduce chances of allergic reactions.

Analysis in the last 5-10 years has shown the Dunning-Kruger effect may not really exist. So it’s a poor basis on which to be judgmental and condescending.

I would invite you to re-read some of the comments you perceived as judgement and condescension and keep an open mind. You might find that you took them as judgement and condescension unfairly.

Meanwhile, you have absolutely been judgemental and condescending yourself. If you really keep the open mind that you profess, you'll take a moment to reflect on this and not dismiss it out of hand. It does not do you any favors to blissfully assume everyone is wrong about you and obliviously continue to be judgmental and condescending.

> It does not do you any favors to blissfully assume everyone is wrong about you and obliviously continue to be judgmental and condescending.

I think if you read my own comments again you will realize I make no such assumptions at all, and have been open to criticism from those who made a genuine attempt to give feedback.

Hi! Your license link is a 404, just FYI

Great spot, thank you! Fixed :)

This is the common wisdom about frameworks but I think it ignores the wastage & other side effects around frameworks and the things they make easy or difficult. Many of the decisions made in any framework will represent guardrails for things that don’t apply to you specifically.

I know you’ll “write your own framework” but maybe that’s optimal in some situations - more than we might give credit to at the moment.

The idea that politics shouldn’t be in a place for “tech stuff” is like saying water should not be discussed in a place for “fish stuff”. Politics is already in tech and has large effects. It’s a part of the stuff.

They might not. That’s why they’d describe it as “an extrovert’s world”.

It is at some level if you take definitions to extremes. If you actively avoid conversations and socializing with other people, you will probably suffer personally and professionally. Of course, that doesn't mean you always have to be the "life of the party."

I’m not sure if suffer is the right word. Some people prefer a quiet life and accept what comes with that, because that’s what they want. And that’s fine.

Of course if you want to live a quiet life and avoid socializing very much, and want to be a successful independent contractor, those might be fairly incompatible goals.

This all really has nothing to do with extroversion to me.

We are talking about what is essentially sales and marketing skills.

I am the life of the party but I would never try to freelance because I hate sales and marketing so much.

This is all really asking how to start a business without having to do sales and marketing. Obviously, that is not going to work.

One can either gain these skills or do something else.

There are some correlations. But I agree that you can be extroverted (whatever that means exactly) but most sales and marketing roles (which vary quite a bit) just don't appeal.

All true but I think an introvert is going to have difficulty taking on a "face of the company" sales and marketing role. That just naturally requires a lot of extrovert personality traits.

Certainly. I have heard of a number of senior execs who really hated public speaking (even when they were very good at it given sufficient rehearsal). But I agree in general. If you have a public/customer-facing role you're going to find it exhausting and probably not going to be great at it if it is uncomfortable/unpleasant.

I'm certainly not the classic stereotype of the outgoing sales rep (whether that's a fair stereotype or not) but that didn't keep me from attending a ton of conferences, customer meetings, and giving public presentations.

I personally don't have a problem with communication with people but honestly I cant really imagine let's say dev meetups or saturdays brunch with purpose of networking anything but somehow awkward experience.

Well, "networking events" at least tend to be forced socialization of people basically looking for jobs as opposed to something more organic. Less true of meetups although they mostly never checked a lot of boxes for me either.

This seems kinda unworkable. If I make you an offer today, you may need time to review it, you might want to let your other interview processes complete and then negotiate, and ultimately you might choose another offer. In the meantime I need to still be interviewing and finding good candidates - I can’t give them an offer same day if I’m already negotiating with you. But I can’t just stop the interviews after making an offer, because not all offers lead to hiring.

So many assumptions here.

As a candidate, I’ve had situations where I got two offers at the same time. BOTH offers were acceptable, both good companies, and I’m confident I would have been happy and successful in either place. With all that being equal, I chose the company that was in my timezone and I had prior connections with. The other company could have done nothing except go waaay above market rate on the role for me.

Some candidates interview just for practice, some are keeping options open, some were solicited to interview and weren’t really looking and the want to get to the offer before they really even begin making a decision.

Likewise, as a hiring manager, I’ve had cases where more than one candidate meets the bar for a single role and I would have been happy to hire either, so “falling back” to the next person isn’t a reduction in standards.

There’s so many reasons that you don’t always hire the first candidate you make an offer too.

> but forgot to tell us about until we had spent weeks following the old one.

To be fair that’s not on Notion per se, there’s an underlying communication problem (which it sounds like your google doc solves!).

> Did people make art to be measured or to be useful?

Quite often to put food on the table, or for clout. There’s an intrinsic desire to create, sure, but there’s also a cultural context in which art is valued and certain kinds of art are valued more at different times or in different places.

I suppose it’s splitting hairs to say that art has some use both for the creator and the consumer, because it’s not the same kind of use you mean.

It’s just that when I dig in to “useful” vs “useless” endevours there’s often no clear line between them.

Perhaps if they inherited the ability from a parent, the parent is more likely to have an income as a result of investing in their education for example.

I mean, maybe, but this is definitely doing causal modeling backwards

Yes, it's possible that there are strong genetic predictors of household income, as a lot of people seem to want there to be for some reason, but when predicting the behavior of a child, their immediate circumstances are a much more parsimonious explanation for their behavior than some genetic factor strongly predicting both the circumstances and the behavior. I'm not saying that genetics being somewhat causally upstream of income is an inherently bad hypothesis, but this kind of correlation analysis doesn't support it as well as it does an environmental influence on time preference