[HN Gopher] Half Baked
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Half Baked
        
       Author : marban
       Score  : 82 points
       Date   : 2022-05-06 16:01 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (seths.blog)
 (TXT) w3m dump (seths.blog)
        
       | golemotron wrote:
       | > Paul's not a genius
       | 
       | oh, yes he is.
        
       | garyrob wrote:
       | I'm not at all sure the evidence support's Seth's claim that Paul
       | and John were not geniuses, at least at that point in their
       | careers.
       | 
       | The music for most recorded song of all-time, Yesterday, came to
       | him in a dream; he went to the piano upon waking up and played
       | it. That's just one example. If you won't call that "genius," as
       | opposed to mere "skill," you have very, very high standards, I
       | would think unrealistically so.
       | 
       | But Seth is allowed to share his writing before it's fully-baked.
       | :)
        
       | kubanczyk wrote:
       | The article is about these miniseries (not about the movie):
       | https://m.imdb.com/title/tt9735318/
       | 
       | Before you ask, they only stream on Disney+.
        
       | 99_00 wrote:
       | Making mistakes is painful. Risking judgment is painful. Respect
       | to everyone who is able to walk through the pain even for a
       | little while.
        
       | hebsbxjsndbd wrote:
       | The author of this post and I saw wildly different documentaries.
       | It was obvious to me that Paul knew exactly how every part should
       | be arranged and played in his songs, and that half of his battle
       | was bringing folks along.
        
       | Tao332 wrote:
       | > John is the fifth hammer.
       | 
       | I didn't know what this meant. Apparently there is a legend that
       | Pythagoras discovered harmony accidentally by overhearing four
       | hammers working. Upon closer inspection of the forge, he also
       | heard a fifth hammer that was discordant to the other four, so he
       | discarded it.
       | 
       | Search "Pythagorean Hammers" for multiple shaky retellings that
       | don't always include the fifth hammer, and a book named after it.
        
       | drcongo wrote:
       | "The sound you make is muzak to my ears"
        
       | rektide wrote:
       | What a fun post!
       | 
       | The one thing I'd try to add or note is that, in a more public
       | environment, I'd love to see more ability to signal how baked we
       | think our shit is. A lot of being online is just fun & merry
       | making & not heavy, is apt for spitballing & play & exploration,
       | but that mixes in with so many serious, real, important shares in
       | the mileau. Just having a knob, high or low bakedness,
       | seriousness, doneness: this kind of information or annotation or
       | metadata could help us better navigate our information spaces so
       | much more clearly.
       | 
       | Some bloggers have adopted attaching epistemic status to their
       | posts. Gwern for example has a write-up on his blog's use of
       | "status"[1], which is to inform the reader essentially of how far
       | they've gotten diving into the topic.
       | 
       | [1] https://www.gwern.net/About#confidence-tags
        
         | tenkabuto wrote:
         | That's a very cool idea and quite applicable to sites with
         | pages that change over time, such as personal wikis. I think
         | I'll add it to my personal wiki! (Feeds for posts of various
         | maturities can be provided, too, which would be nice!)
        
         | divbzero wrote:
         | I really like the idea of indicating epistemic status for
         | posts. The closest to that for code might be version numbers
         | where anything under v1.0 should be taken with a grain of salt.
         | This dynamic of spitballing-or-serious appears on HN sometimes
         | when a personal project gets shared by a third party, is good
         | enough to attract serious comments/critiques, but then the
         | author of the project chimes in to say "I totally didn't expect
         | this to be shared here it's definitely a work in progress..."
        
       | tiffanyh wrote:
       | The tech equivalent of "half baked" is "Beta" software.
       | 
       | This was frequent term used in the 2000s.
       | 
       | "MVP" software is the modern day equivalent of half-bake/beta.
        
       | waynecochran wrote:
       | I have worked with dev's and researchers who have a very
       | sensitive "bullshit meter" which is good a lot of the time, but
       | often prevented me from bringing my half-baked ideas to the
       | table. I would wait until I knew I had something solid.
        
         | zerkten wrote:
         | I'm curious if they changed over time? I've observed this
         | change in myself to a degree. There are things I'd not have let
         | go in the past, but now I catch myself and evaluate the
         | context. There is a fine balance between reducing bullshit that
         | affects an organization and limiting the potential of the
         | organization.
        
           | waynecochran wrote:
           | Eventually it has always improved over time in terms of
           | others being open to my ideas. It sometimes takes awhile to
           | develop a good reputation to be trusted.
        
       | johnobrien1010 wrote:
       | I'm a product manager. One of the things I'm moved towards doing
       | with engineering teams over the years is bringing ideas when they
       | aren't fully fleshed out sooner to engineering teams. It really
       | helps do a couple of things- it saves time, if it is a bad idea,
       | I found out sooner rather than later. And if it is a good idea,
       | it gives other people the opportunity to contribute to it, making
       | it their own as well as mine, which helps everyone on the team
       | take more ownership of the outcome and have a better feeling of
       | purpose in life. I think you need to earn credibility before you
       | start doing it but once you have that credibility I highly
       | recommend it.
        
         | doctor_eval wrote:
         | It's great that you share your ideas with your team. I've been
         | in both product management and engineering roles and I can say
         | with certainty that everyone has terrible ideas, including
         | (sometimes especially) engineers.
         | 
         | The thing is, you can't tell if an idea has legs until you
         | share it. And even after going through your own filter and that
         | of your colleagues and other disciplines, the only thing that's
         | actually important is how the product is received by the
         | audience.
         | 
         | So holding it all close to your chest is just a really good way
         | of reducing the likelihood of success. And because of this,
         | wherever I can, I try to mock up a cheap prototype of a product
         | first, something that expresses my ideas in a tangible way that
         | others can understand, just to make sure that what I'm working
         | on is actually worth the time.
        
           | bredren wrote:
           | How do you and GP feel about sharing half baked ideas with
           | customers?
           | 
           | For example, replacing a table view that gets limited
           | engagement with a feed with some workflow actions.
           | 
           | Half baked at this point might be some static screenshots
           | from figma.
        
       | itsoktocry wrote:
       | > _Paul's not a genius_
       | 
       | This post feels like shallow, Malcolm Gladwellish, wrap-a-simple-
       | idea-with-a-random-narrative stuff.
       | 
       | Paul McCartney might be the greatest pop musician/songwriter of
       | the 20th century. Some (most?) of his best works were performed
       | _after_ the Beatles. If he 's not a genius, then no musician is a
       | genius.
        
         | golemotron wrote:
         | Exactly.
        
         | abbub wrote:
         | Not only all of the above, but for Paul in particular, a genius
         | who was in the midst of one of the largest creative highs of
         | his entire career. I mean, some of the snippets of 'half-baked'
         | songs he plays are songs that will figure well into his
         | solo/Wings career. I honestly don't know how you can come out
         | of watching Get Back with anything other than admiration for
         | human creativity as personified by Paul McCartney during this
         | amazing month that got captured on film.
        
       | itsoktocry wrote:
       | > _Paul's not a genius_
       | 
       | This post feels like shallow, Malcolm Gladwellish, wrap-a-simple-
       | idea-with-a-random-narrative stuff.
       | 
       | Yes, MVPs are good. But Paul McCartney might be the greatest pop
       | musician/songwriter of the 20th century. Some (most?) of his best
       | works were performed _after_ the Beatles. If he 's not a genius,
       | then no musician is a genius.
        
         | kansface wrote:
         | > Some (most?) of his best works were performed after the
         | Beatles.
         | 
         | I imagine this is a _really_ unpopular and /or uncommon
         | opinion! I do not share it.
        
           | drcongo wrote:
           | I can't think of a single post-Beatles McCartney song that I
           | like.
        
             | v-erne wrote:
             | Have you heard Come On to Me ?
             | (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeJLrtFY7Ds) For me this
             | is the most Beatles like song by Paul done after Beatles.
        
             | robotresearcher wrote:
             | 'Maybe I'm Amazed?' is a terrific song. How about it?
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | teucris wrote:
         | > If he's not a genius, then no musician is a genius.
         | 
         | Maybe there's no such thing as genius. Maybe what we call
         | genius is the synthesis of many people's work, or luck, or
         | both.
         | 
         | Not to say Paul isn't an incredible musician. Just that maybe
         | the Beatles were genius, not any single member.
        
         | Adraghast wrote:
         | > This post feels like shallow, Malcolm Gladwellish, wrap-a-
         | simple-idea-with-a-random-narrative stuff.
         | 
         | You've identified Seth Godin's entire schtick. The man is the
         | godfather of vapid "give me your email address in exchange for
         | a free ebook where I teach you to how to become a billionaire"
         | hucksters and is not worthy of respect.
        
           | jwaterhouse wrote:
           | It's a long form LinkedIn shitpost.
        
         | JKCalhoun wrote:
         | Agree that Paul is a genius, not so sure I agree his best works
         | came post-Beatles. To be sure his catalog post-Beatles is
         | greater, if good songs are a roll of the dice then five decades
         | vs. one is kind of loading the dice....
         | 
         | I'll argue that with John and his "fresh ears" Paul was able to
         | write some of his most _creative_ songs with the Beatles.
        
         | formerkrogemp wrote:
         | A century of pop musician/songwriters and you chose Paul
         | McCartney as the greatest? That's a pretty high bar. His
         | singing doesn't come close to the melodic, cat-drowning sound
         | of Bob Dylan. I'd say it's much better in fact.
        
         | Tao332 wrote:
         | Don't cherrypick it then. The rest of the piece explains it.
         | He's not someone who just walks into a collaborative process
         | with wholly self-completed works of natural brilliance.
         | Instead, he's someone who knows how to facilitate the emergence
         | of a genius-level chemistry between himself and another.
         | 
         | Now you can see that he is saying that Paul _is_ a genius, just
         | that his true genius isn 't exactly what we think it is when we
         | talk about creative genius.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | robotresearcher wrote:
           | > He's not someone who just walks into a collaborative
           | process with wholly self-completed works of natural
           | brilliance
           | 
           | 'Yesterday':
           | 
           | "I woke up with a lovely tune in my head," he told author
           | Barry Miles for the biography Many Years From Now, which was
           | published in 1998. "I thought, 'That's great, I wonder what
           | that is?' There was an upright piano next to me, to the right
           | of the bed by the window. I got out of bed, sat at the piano,
           | found G, found F sharp minor 7th - and that leads you through
           | then to B to E minor, and finally back to E. It all leads
           | forward logically. I liked the melody a lot but because I'd
           | dreamed it I couldn't believe I'd written it."
           | 
           | https://www.biography.com/news/paul-mccartney-the-beatles-
           | ye...
        
         | draw_down wrote:
        
       | marban wrote:
       | _Because the half-baked work, shared in a trusting environment,
       | is the fuel for the system that created the works of genius._
       | 
       | Half-baked, not half-ass, is the key.
        
         | waynecochran wrote:
         | Yes. If you already have a positive proven history, the more
         | you often you can bring your half-baked ideas to the table.
        
           | marban wrote:
           | I always try to apply this for an MVP (Yes, terrible word).
        
         | booboofixer wrote:
         | > shared in a trusting environment
         | 
         | I thought this was the key. For the beatles it probably wasn't
         | that hard to do. But for other people taking inspiration, know
         | where and when to share.
         | 
         | Had the beatles performed their half-baked songs in front of a
         | mediocre band that was to perform the very next day in front of
         | a large audience, what would have stopped this mediocre band
         | from stealing a song and performing it as their own?
         | 
         | Closed-source software makes all the money in the world today.
        
       | dfee wrote:
       | Seth didn't include a link to the series, but it's called "The
       | Beatles: Get Back".
       | 
       | [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles:_Get_Back
        
       | paulpauper wrote:
       | we need to stop using the Beatles as examples of practice and
       | success. They are such a huge outlier.
        
         | ellyagg wrote:
         | There was a lot less coompetition and optimization back then
        
       | m82labs wrote:
       | " By putting themselves in a corner, he created (at no small
       | cost) the conditions where he could do the work."
       | 
       | I think this might be the more important part. I am a firm
       | believer that you do your best and most creative work under known
       | and limiting constraints. With the constraints in place you
       | couldn't afford to NOT bring your half-baked ideas to the table.
        
       | psb wrote:
       | I was also impressed and surprised by how much time they spent
       | screwing around singing with goofy voices and the like
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-05-06 23:00 UTC)