Something I’ve noticed about the new #Overwatch character #Venture: yeah, they’re reminiscent of DPS Doomfist, except completely different in that they’re fun to play against even when they’re the problem. They’re like the opposite of playing against Sombra, the current most anti-fun character in the game by far.
Someone I play with occasionally says they think it’s because they lack the stun mechanism DPS-era Doomfist had and that’s certainly part of it, but I don’t know that it’s all of it.
Whatever it is, though, this is the best new character launch out of Team 4 in a long time. At least so far. (It’s a preview weekend so they’ll be rolled back out Monday until the full launch next season.)
The one thing #Musk's #successful companies have in common is that they are run by someone else. Every #venture he is personally in charge of is a disaster. He seems to be good at attaching himself to other people's #success, and convincing others that they are his success. What a dick.
The more I work with startups and founders the more I get to understand the super power of structure and dumbing things down.
While inherently chaotic having to do the same things over and over again but in different ways is so resource intensive, it can be a nightmare. Structure frees up resources and pave the way for better results.
I have strong opinions about distribution of stakes in a #StartUp to co-founders.
Many times the scheme is so that one person considers themselves as the main #founder, and is looking for co-founders with smaller stakes. This is often rationalized by work or capital already put into the #venture idea, domain names and such.
The real reason is entitlement and greed.
Looking at a venture from above, from first principles, it doesn't matter who has put in more work in the past, what matters is the future. Having contributed a lot to the common pool means respect and gratitude, not privilege and commanding stake.
If all founders are titled co-founders and no one puts themself the first as the founder proper, it promotes equal commitment, engagement and fairness. Of course there are other critical aspects for a start-up success, but lacking in those will cause unnecessary trouble.
That trouble is fully unnecessary. Just divide equally and don't consider your contributions transactional but as contributing to the common venture in solidarity. No one in a start-up is a freeloader anyhow, you tend to make sure of that, and you most definitely do not want to codify in the stake distribution that some co-founders are more freeloaders than others.
You need equal stakes if you expect equal commitment, engagement and contribution in the future. An inequal distribution is a symptom of having a founder team where there is no trust, and this means failure.
Don't make an equal distribution of shares to a team you pretend to trust. Rather get a team you do trust and share equally with them. If you can't do that, it is good to fail fast.
Intimidation. Attempt to bankrupt the org & frazzle the founders so they abandon their work.
The purpose of racism is distraction & depletion of the subject’s resources.
This is violence.