Taylor TroeshModify

2025-03-17 08:00:00

There are no shortcuts. You cannot build a successful company in five weeks.

But for optimists (and lunatics), five weeks is plenty to start a company.

You probably have a dayjob. Exceed your employer's expectations. Don't accept paychecks you don't deserve. Work on your startup mornings (not evenings) and weekends. Save your PTO until the third week, and then start taking off Mondays/Tuesdays (not Thursdays/Fridays) if needed. If you can no longer maintain stellar quality at work, it's time to move on.

Week 1

Founders must adopt an investor mindset. If you want to create value, learn how to assess opportunity, how to leverage assets, and how to hedge risk.

It's okay to fundraise and it's okay to bootstrap. Either way, don't let ego rule you. Capital can be a tool like any other.

Investors don't choose startups, they choose founders. They want to multiply their money, and they want you to do it. But you can't just "pivot" a lousy personality. Nobody wants to bet on a billion-dollar idea that's chained to a fool.

If you are worth investment, then invest in yourself.

1. Get a haircut. Maintain a clean/fresh appearance. Any style will do.
2. Learn to listen. If most strangers don't describe you as "charismatic", you must upgrade your EQ. Read HTWFAIP, Motivational Interviewing, and Supercommunicators. Use AI to practice listening.
3. Hire a therapist. Launching a venture is hard. Secondhand-stress ruins relationships. Your spouse is not your therapist. If you vent more than you listen, your support system will avoid you in proportion to how much you need them.
4. Look in the mirror. Who are you? What values will you compromise? How do you want to behave? How do you want others to perceive you? What do you want living to feel like?
5. Get enthusiastic consent. If you can't sell your vision to your inner circle, you are not ready to start. Friends/family should call your startup idea "obvious". If they aren't ecstatic about your gameplan, you haven't (1) demonstrated competence/value or (2) hedged against known risks.
6. Take a headshot. A high-quality profile picture indicates that you were once worth a professional photo.
7. Become searchable. Investors hesitate to throw money at mysterious strangers. Update your LinkedIn work history. Also consider Googling yourself to find/delete unused accounts.
8. Upgrade your audio/video. Buy a mic (if you can afford it). Buy a webcam light (even if you can't afford it). If you've got Apple devices, buy a mount for Continuity Cam.
9. Go hands-free. As a business owner, you will be a slave to the telephone; invest in some comfortable bluetooth headphones so you can walk and talk.
10. Learn to send emails. Quick replies impress investors and customers. Respond to every email/SMS/voicemail within 12 hours (preferably less). Master the art of terse emails.
11. Accept AI. Founders wear all the hats. Pay the extra cash for Grok DeepResearch (great for web search) and Claude (best for everything else). LLM text has a pungent odor, so beware of copy/paste. And remember that LLMs bias toward "unsurprising" results; even correct advice can revert you towards the mean.

Week 2

Good businesses create non-zero-sum wealth. If you sell that wealth for dollars, you can create more wealth to sell.

Outside of theft and burglary, the only way to make money is to convince other people to give you their money.

1. Close a customer. A business with no customers is just a stressful hobby. Opt for FPC (First Paying Customer) before MVP. Nominal revenue (e.g. $1) counts. Don't prematurely automate; do boring manual labor and sell before you're ready.
2. Serve your customer. Deliver your promise. Compromise nothing. Treat your customer like a deity.
3. Upgrade. How can you make this customer exchange more delightful? Smoother? Less stressful? Adopt processes. Purchase tools. Hire people.

Week 3

The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.

Create wealth and sell it to customers. You will not succeed if you cannot (1) create wealth, (2) find customers, and (3) sell that wealth.

1. Close five customers. You can do this. You have something they need.
2. Serve your customers. Pamper them. No excuses.
3. Upgrade. Adopt/build/hire processes/tools/people that increase quality, improve consistency, increase speed, reduce cost, etc.
4. Land a loan/investment. By working with customers, you've probably identified a concrete use for capital. Convince a family member or friend to send a small check ($1k-$25k). Simple loans are easiest; you can remain a sole-proprietor indefinitely and skip loads of paperwork. If you want to exchange equity (i.e. a security), they probably need to be an accredited investor (i.e. "millionaire"); you'll need to incorporate (e.g. Stripe Atlas) and manage stakeholders (e.g. AngelList). Each investment -- no matter how small -- is faith in you. Make every penny count; repay their wagers tenfold.
5. Follow up. You're sending more emails; don't wait for people. Pester Plan A, start Plan B, and devise Plan C. This is your life now.
6. Create visual media. You will soon be sharing pitch decks, ads, etc. You need professional illustrations, a "good enough" logo, high-quality photos (or renders), explainer videos, etc. You might have good enough taste to do it yourself, but you do not have enough time. Hire somebody (e.g. Fiverr) to produce more materials than you think you need. Don't be lazy -- stock photos and AI images reek of corporate cringe.

Week 4

Don't lose focus. Share your wealth.

1. Delight existing customers. This is (and will forever be) your main duty.
2. Meet new customers. Who are your customers? Where do they go? What are their wildest hopes/dreams?
3. Upgrade. Better. Faster. Cheaper.
4. More loans/investments. Befriend leverage. Deploy capital.
5. Launch a landing page. The internet is cool, but don't overdo it. Choose a simple website host (e.g. Squarespace, Shopify). Embed/link a webform for leads.
6. Advertise. Yes, everybody hates ads. Swallow your pride and advertise on Instagram, Google, Reddit, YouTube, LinkedIn, etc.
7. Share your pitch deck. If you're going to fundraise, start now. Build a pitch deck. Do not reinvent the wheel; investors expect slides with specific information. If you're lucky, somebody will spend 20 seconds scrolling through it on their phone. Prefer pictures/charts over words; Claude/ChatGPT can plot data quickly. Your goal is to (1) prove competence, (2) guarantee profits, and (3) mitigate risks. Ask Grok DeepResearch to match you with compatible VCs/incubators/accelerators; submit your deck to each website.

Week 5+

Put everything together. Construct an engine that predictably transforms money into wealth, and then wealth into more money.

1. Grow. Delight customers. Meet customers. Upgrade. Borrow. Advertise. Repeat.
2. Pitch. If fundraising, submit pitches. Listen. Hedge risks. Refine your thesis. Repeat. Don't be greedy, and never cash a check that is chained to a fool. Revere $1K checks, $1M checks, $1B checks. Somebody believes in you; don't betray that trust. Live your values without exception. Protect every damn ounce of reputation.
3. Recruit. Go fast alone; go far together. Find friends. Surround yourself with your favorite people; bring out their best. Help them achieve their wildest dreams, and don't get left behind.

This is just the beginning. The rules are simple, but the game is grueling:

• When demand is scarce, listen to customers. You should (A) increase quality/experience, (B) reduce costs, (C) educate customers, and/or (D) admit defeat.
• If capital can help, ask for it.
• If you've got more demand (customers) than supply, you should (A) raise prices and/or (B) increase supply.
• If each new customer brings $10 of profit, you should spend up to $10 to find a new customer.

If you succeed, share that abundance with others. Remember where you're going, remember where you came from, and choose who you're becoming.

2025-03-16 08:00:00

Many folks find me abrasive. I pry, probe, steamroll conversations, miss social cues, argue, trounce boundaries, send mixed/unintentional signals, deeply offend, and so on.

I'm as charismatic as a root canal.

But I'm determined to grow. Books like HTWFAIP and How to Have Impossible Conversations and How To Talk So Kids Will Listen contain countless gems to evoke the best from people.

Unfortunately, I can't use that wisdom. When it comes time to put my mouth where my mouth is, I drown in the speed of normal conversation.

People somehow learn this stuff. There's literally school for it. How do they learn to talk and listen?

There are no shortcuts. In licensed therapy programs, professionals evangelize conflicting frameworks and nobody knows what's going on. I'm here to share one such framework.

Motivational Interviewing

Motivational Interviewing was developed for substance abuse rehabilitation, but it's grown popular with clinical psychologists, therapists, counselors, etc.

I'm no professional -- just some random internet person -- but MI has dramatically improved my listening skills.

My amateur summary of MI is that (1) people feel ambivalence, (2) change comes from within, and (3) "OARS" conversations hasten that change.

Ambivalence

I suddenly spotted that ambivalence everywhere. People frequently feel anxiety/grief about work, family, health, etc. These enormous feelings leak into conversations as venting, gossip, smalltalk, and current events.

Street Epistomology offers guides on how to encourage productive dialogue. Consider using those techniques to help others explore beliefs and feelings.

Change

Watching somebody's brain "click" is a rare delight of life. All of a sudden, that face lights up -- loss to enlightenment.

These moments rarely happen during dialogue, because you can't change the brain through the ears.

Think about your own experience. Most "a-ha" moments don't occur in the classroom -- they happen while doing the homework. There is no substitute for first-person learning.

You cannot lecture somebody into changing beliefs/feelings/motivations, but you can totally watch friends do their homework.

Don't assume too much -- part of the magic is learning what homework they've assigned themselves.

OARS

When people share confused/conflicting feelings, you can use OARS:

• Open-ended Questions: Encouraging elaboration with "what," "how," and "tell me about" questions that explore feelings, values, and priorities while avoiding judgmental "why" questions that can shut down conversation.
• Affirmations: Recognizing strengths, efforts, self-awareness, and courage shown through expressing conflicting feelings, including positive qualities the person might not recognize in themselves.
• Reflective Listening: Demonstrating understanding of their perspective using both simple and complex reflections that capture underlying meanings and both sides of ambivalence, sometimes incorporating metaphors to represent emotional complexity.
• Summarizing: Collecting and linking important elements by highlighting key tensions, structuring summaries to show relationships between different feelings, and ending with an invitation for correction or further exploration.

Yeah, I hate social-science acronyms too. I've internalized it as an algorithm:

1. Move conversations along via "You…" statements. Where do you think they're going with this? e.g. "You're thinking about quitting.", "You're frustrated by your progress.", "You're unsure what to do next." If you don't know where they're going next, ask an open-ended question.
2. If you're impressed by somebody's strength/courage/etc, pay them a compliment. Never lie or patronize.
3. When they conclude a line of thought, ask an open-ended question.
4. When lots of tangents/threads are open, identify themes/patterns and try summarizing.

Practice your conversational skills with this LLM prompt: "Help me practice OARS via role-playing. You are a friend I haven't seen in a few weeks."

Examples

I'm thinking about trying that new restaurant downtown, but I saw some mixed reviews online. Some people loved it and others said the service was terrible.

• Open-ended Question: "What kinds of things make or break a restaurant experience for you?"
• Affirmation: "You're doing your homework before spending your money there."
• Reflective Listening: "You're curious about the place but hesitant because of what you've read."
• Summarizing: "You want to check out this new spot, but the inconsistent reviews have you wondering if it's worth the risk of having a disappointing night out."

Everyone's talking about that new show, but I watched three episodes and just couldn't get into it. I feel like I'm missing something.

• Open-ended Question: "What about it didn't click for you?"
• Affirmation: "You gave it a fair chance instead of just going along with the hype."
• Reflective Listening: "You're feeling a bit out of step with what everyone else seems to be enjoying."
• Summarizing: "So while this show is getting all this buzz, it just didn't connect with you despite giving it several episodes, and now you're wondering if there's something you're not seeing that others are."

Did you hear about that big tech company layoff? They cut 5000 jobs after reporting record profits last quarter. It seems so unfair.

• Open-ended Question: "What do you think is really behind these kinds of corporate decisions?"
• Affirmation: "You're keeping up with business news and noticing the contradictions there."
• Reflective Listening: "The timing of cutting jobs right after announcing big profits feels wrong to you."
• Summarizing: "So you're seeing this disconnect between a company doing well financially and still eliminating thousands of jobs, which raises questions about their priorities and values."

I hate my job. My boss micromanages everything I do, and I feel like I'm wasting my talents. But I can't afford to quit.

• Open-ended Question: "What bugs you most about your everyday work life?"
• Affirmation: "You really know your worth and you're being smart about the money side of things too."
• Reflective Listening: "Sounds like you're stuck between a job that's dragging you down and bills that need to be paid."
• Summarizing: "So your boss's hovering is driving you crazy, and you know you could be doing better things with your skills. But right now, the financial reality is keeping you from making a move."

I know I should exercise more and eat better. Every Monday I start a new routine but by Wednesday I'm back to my old habits. I just don't have the willpower.

• Open-ended Question: "What tends to throw you off track around Wednesday?"
• Affirmation: "I notice you keep trying every week - that takes some real persistence."
• Reflective Listening: "It's pretty frustrating when you start strong but can't seem to keep it going."
• Summarizing: "You want those healthier habits and you give it a fresh shot every week. You start off great, but something happens a couple days in that knocks you off course, and that's got you thinking maybe you just don't have what it takes."

I've been offered two jobs. One pays better but requires long hours. The other is more aligned with my interests but the salary is lower. I've been going back and forth for days and can't decide.

• Open-ended Question: "Besides the money and hours, what really matters to you in a job right now?"
• Affirmation: "You're not jumping at the first offer - you're really thinking this through."
• Reflective Listening: "You're torn between the paycheck and doing something you actually care about, and it's stressing you out."
• Summarizing: "So you're at this fork in the road - more money but less life, or work you care about but tighter finances. It's tough because both paths speak to different things you value."

My partner and I keep having the same argument. They say I'm not communicative enough, but when I try to talk, they interrupt or criticize what I'm saying. It's easier to just stay quiet.

• Open-ended Question: "What would good talking between you two look like?"
• Affirmation: "You're pretty tuned in to what's happening between you two."
• Reflective Listening: "You're in this loop where trying to open up just leads to feeling shut down, so why bother?"
• Summarizing: "So they want you to talk more, but when you do, you get cut off or criticized. That makes you clam up, which brings you back to square one. No wonder you're frustrated."

2025-03-15 08:00:00

Quantity

Probability

Time (seconds)

Frequency (hertz)

Money (dollars)

Dollars per day

Days per $1000

Dollars per kilogram

Kilograms per dollar

Energy (Joules)

Power (Watts)

Kilowatt hours (kWh)

Milli-amp hours (mAh)

Energy Storage Density (Wh/kg)

Dollars per kilowatt hour

Kilowatt hours per dollar

Information (bits)

Throughput (bps)

Operations

Operations per second

Operations per Joule

Operations per dollar

2025-03-13 08:00:00

In 2022, I was an alcoholic with a newborn baby and a startup, so I decided to ride a bicycle from San Francisco to Los Angeles (877km or 545mi).

AIDS/Lifecycle is a great charity (donate), but it was insanely selfish of me to commit to something like this at the time. I am so grateful for Chelsea, who supports my ambitions and forgives my folly.

This decision defied logic. Dad bod claimed me long before the baby arrived. I knew nothing about cycling. I did not own a bike.

But I had to change something -- no, I had to change myself. To become somebody else, I decided to start living somebody else's life. I don't remember how the bicycle got involved.

I wasn't ready to be sober, nor to be a father, nor to start a company, nor to ride that bike.

Seriously, I rode the first 100 miles with two flat tires because I assumed all tubes needed exactly 12 PSI.

You'll never be ready for such things. Do them anyway.

2025-03-09 08:00:00

I write extremely because I'm a weak writer.

Better writers accurately express ideas. They communicate their beliefs, their feelings, and the magnitude of their convictions. And then they choose word after word after word to share the view from their skull holes.

"Probably" and "maybe" dilute writing, but those words reduce intensity. I tend to err on the side of "too intense", but this is usually not how I feel -- it's just an artifact of weak writing.

I really wanted to use fancy words like "affect" and "valence" here, but I don't think I actually know what those words mean.

I'm still trying to solve this intesity dilemma, but it seems the only way to become a better writer is to write more. Consider this a disclaimer, an advance apology, and a big "student driver" sign for this blog.

To help me grow more quickly, please post feedback. Poke holes in my theories. Give counterexamples to my claims. Share your experience.

My therapist says that effective feedback follows this pattern: "When I see <phenomenon\>, I feel <emotion\>." For example: "When I see dishes in the sink, I feel anxious and overwhelmed." It's difficult (but so important) to remove judgements/assumptions when you're speaking about your experience.

Thank you for all the insightful comments across the link aggregators. Thank you for brightening up my inbox. Thank you for bringing the best parts of the internet to my feeds on X, Bluesky, and Mastodon.

Thanks. With your continued help, I can [probably] become a better writer, and [maybe] a better thinker.

2025-03-01 08:00:00

In my pursuit of a sharable programming language, I need a suitable serialization format that's (1) performant to send/store and (2) easy to understand/implement.

Serialized scrapscript expressions are called "flat scraps".

In a previous essay, I crammed scrapscript into MessagePack.

At the time, I didn't realize that Max Bernstein had already written an entire serializer in ~100 LOC. Mind blown!

After further experiments, I somehow convinced myself that this serialization format also needed to (3) commit to existing standards, (4) work overtime as a pseudo-IR, (5), and run on relatively crappy hardware.

I'm still in the discovery phase here. Max's format remains very attractive after witnessing the weight of popular CBOR and msgpack implementations.

Meanwhile, Peter Saxton (EYG) sent me a friendly email recommending CBOR as a potential alternative to MessagePack.

Uh oh -- competing standards? Marginal design tradeoffs? Open-source woes? Buckle up!

Drama is fun, but not relevant to this essay. This post provides a solid summary of CBOR's history. This comment links to the most contentious public spats.

Which is cooler?

Obviously MessagePack is what cool kids would use.

Compare the subheadings on each landing page:

• msgpack: "It's like JSON. but fast and small."
• CBOR: "RFC 8949 Concise Binary Object Representation"

One of these formats is wearing a damn necktie.

Everything about CBOR is uncool. It was designed by a committee. It reeks of RFCs. Acronyms are lame. Saying "SEE-BORE" is like licking a nickel. One of the authors is "Carsten Bormann", which makes the name feel masturbatory.

CBOR was inspired by MessagePack. MessagePack was developed and promoted by Sadayuki Furuhashi ("frsyuki").

-- RFC 8949

Loyalty to an "original" brand has merit. Instead of chasing mere incremental improvements, you can support creators who synthesize value from nearly nothing. To favor derivative work can feel like choosing bureaucracy over personal expression.

Which is more efficient?

But many people don't care about "coolness" -- they want compression and speed and performance.

In these benchmarks, the author compared performance between two popular Go libraries. From these tests, it appears that the CBOR library encodes/decodes ~200% faster.

Which is simpler?

But efficiency isn't everything. I usually choose conceptual simplicity over performance. Like most makers, I resent depending on forces I cannot understand.

To measure complexity, you can often use documentation length as a proxy. MessagePack is just a markdown file. The CBOR spec has its own gravitational field.

However, upon further scrutiny, I've found that the documentation sniff-test misled me. This HN comment shares my latest thoughts:

Yeah, I skipped all the drama, read the spec and implemented an encoder/decoder. CBOR is just how MessagePack-like format should have been done from the beginning: it's technically superior in a sense that it's neat and simple, replacing many specialized rules with one generalization.

At its top-level, MessagePack defines a bunch of types: integers, floats, arrays, extensions, etc. CBOR unifies these types with "tags"; this pattern seems much easier to explain and implement.

This person posits that CBOR's tags are poorly designed. Although I respectfully disagree with his conclusions, I think he makes some great points.

Which is more popular?

"Serialization" often connotes "communication". Bandwidth is expensive, so formats like MessagePack and CBOR make obvious candidates for computer protocols.

Metcalfe's Law states that the value of a protocol is proportional to its popularity.

The data speak for itself:

Which is better?

For my particular use-case, CBOR totally wins. Scrapscript expressions feel great inside CBOR's extension tags.

I prefer CBOR, but I don't like that I prefer CBOR. It irks me to use technology with political baggage.

Anyway, MessagePack and CBOR are vast improvements over JSON. As long as MessagePack retains its popular advantage, both options seem reasonable.

Protocols are important. Communicate with caution.