Paul Graham is such a fun read, but when I have my skeptical hat on I don’t find myself convinced. What’s the mechanism of action? If LW doesn’t die it will eventually achieve its aims because .. ?
I do like the lens of product-market fit, and I tentatively agree LW doesn’t really have it. I guess you could say that you have successfully avoided dying and now you get to continuing swinging at ideas until you hit a home run.
The hypothesis is: the value of the site technical functionality to the average user is mostly the posts, comments and votes. That’s already built so the work on the margin hasn’t increased the value that much. The real room for variation is the value of the content (writing) on the site. The value of that content is modest (not huge) and static (not growing).
Here’s a pessimistic takeaway. One should expect a site that was providing a lot of value to its users to grow, even if it wasn’t explicitly trying to.
Perhaps most of the value of the site is in the fact that it has posts, comments and votes. Beyond that it’s the value of the content, and that is modest and static.
View is lightly held, and I’m not drawing much in the way of conclusions from it. I am still impressed with the feature roadmap and the velocity of improvement.
I’ve rigged google assistant to be easy to speak out notes to for situations where I don’t have use of my hands.
😛 Dangit, my American intuition wasn’t good enough. I was kinda close, only a factor of 2 maybe.
It seems plausible that it’s correct to treat a piece of information as approaching very close the fact-ness. If I say that a cup contains an kilogram of water, there’s some sense in which this is not a pure fact, but it seems very close to a pure fact, and although pure-factness about water in this cup may be unattainable, it is not infinitely far away.
Lead developer here. Yes. By “based off of,” he means “forked from with fairly minimal changes.”