I am overinvested in learning.

Not in the charming, intellectual way.

In the expensive way. And money was only part of the bill.

The rest came in wasted effort, stress, lower quality, and that lovely sensation of getting a little too close to panic.

So over time, I learned how to get things done with more consistency and less self-inflicted damage.

Mostly by doing them wrong first.

At some point, I realized that most tasks fall into two very obvious categories.

Nobody is blocking me. Nobody needs to approve anything yet. Nobody is “circling back.” It is just me, the task, and my ability to make it weird.

From A to W.

Not Z, obviously. We rarely believe anything is fully finished. At some point we just stop adjusting it and send the file with the trembling dignity of a person who has run out of edits.

This is also how small businesses start.

First we do everything ourselves.

Then we scale.

Then we develop new emotional textures.

I still own the outcome, but the result depends on other people.

Sometimes those people report to me, which helps.

Sometimes they absolutely do not, which is a more spiritually interesting arrangement.

Either way, the problem is the same: the deadline is mine, but progress depends on other people with their own priorities, schedules, emergencies, and oddly relaxed attitude toward my urgency.

That is usually where things start to slip.

So those are the two versions of the game.

One is hard.

The other is hard plus human beings.

I have spent enough time in both to collect a few lessons that are painfully obvious and still somehow useful.

This used to be one of my favorite mistakes.

I would look at a task due Friday and think, excellent, a whole week. Which sounds reasonable until you remember that the first version is almost never the final one. The first version is just the moment the real process begins.

Review starts.

Comments arrive.

Someone asks for a tweak that turns into six tweaks.

Approval takes longer than logic would suggest.

So no, finishing does not mean “I showed something.”

Finishing means the thing was accepted, finalized, and handed off with no one asking, “Can you make just one small adjustment?”

That is why if a task is supposed to take a week, version one should exist by day three.

Annoying. Inconvenient. Also true.

That is why I start writing the newsletter on Monday.

Not because I am disciplined (let’s not spread misinformation).

Because I know I will need the week.

A section a day is pleasant. A full newsletter in one panicked sitting is how a person starts treating caffeine like a coworker.

And then Jakub appears (the handsome one from the welcome email - do you remember?).

He shows up with comments, adds random commas, catches the weird jumps, points out the unclear parts, and gently reminds me that my “finished draft” is usually just draft one.

Rude.

Helpful for readers. Inconvenient for me.

That brings me to the next lesson.

This one took me longer to learn than it should have.

For a while, feedback felt like failure, comments like proof, and revisions like punishment for not being brilliant in one shot.

But comments usually mean something much simpler.

The work has entered its second form.

That shift matters.

The moment I stopped treating feedback like a personal indictment, I got much better at actually finishing things.

Not starting them. Not almost finishing them.

Finishing them.

If my result depends on other people, I cannot afford to check in only at the end.

That is how you discover, very late and very unnecessarily, that the whole project was being held together by optimism and vague replies.

So I check early.

Then I check again.

And I try to make progress visible.

Because “working on it” is not a status update. It is folklore.

If something is moving, I want evidence: a draft, a screenshot, a file, a number, a decision.

And if several people are involved, spoken updates are not enough.

They evaporate.

Written ones leave a trail.

So I ask, then follow up in writing. A short recap with status, promises, and next steps.

Nothing fancy. Just enough to make reality harder to rewrite later.

Other teams do not care about my deadline.

They already have one.

So my job is not just to ask.

It is to stop asking people to “help” and start asking for one specific next move.

Instead of: Can you work on this this week?

I try: Can you send me version one by Thursday at 2 p.m.?

Pro tip: ask your AI assistant, every morning after coffee and before the news poisons your blood, to give you 10 polite ways to say: “checking in to see where things stand”.

You’re very welcome!

And one more thing.

Not a diary entry.

Not a grand reflection.

Just one line.

“I assumed silence meant progress. Incredible.”

or

“I kept it flexible until it fell apart.”

That is how I stopped paying tuition twice.

So yes, I am overinvested in learning.

Let this spare somebody a dumb week.

Till next time.

Why You’re Always Right - 6 min read.

This one is for anyone who has ever thought, “How can these people believe this nonsense?” Very easily, apparently - the same way we believe ours. Sharp, funny, and useful.

The Original Attention Crisis - 3 min read.

Not to ruin anyone’s favorite excuse, but information overload is not a new bug. It is a very old feature. Newport pulls a great historical example to argue for single-topic focus and protected hours for hard thinking, which is annoying because it sounds both simple and correct.

What do you want your days to actually look like? - 3 min read.

I like productivity advice that does not immediately demand a new app, a new identity, and a new morning routine. This one basically says: look at where your time actually goes, notice the gap, and stop acting surprised when your days keep building a life you did not order.

It reads easy but does serious work. Real scenarios (difficult boss, fear of failure, reconnecting relationships) get reframed into better questions you can use the same day. Helpful when life feels like a stack of unclear choices.

Some days, that is exactly the setup I need. Preferably in a basement, with no internet and other humans’ access.

Cliff Logic: Hoffman likes the line about startups being like jumping off a cliff and building an airplane on the way down. It sounds dramatic because it is. The useful part is the rule underneath: if the default state is failure, playing it safe can be the reckless move.

Risk Inversion: He has said that sometimes the biggest risk is not taking risk.

Embarrassing Launch: He has defended shipping products that embarrass you a little. The point is not to lower standards for fun. The point is to get into the real market sooner, where users can start correcting your fantasy life.

Learning Curve First: His case for shipping early is basically tactical impatience. If competitors are learning from the market while you are still admiring your own roadmap, you are already behind. He would rather be awkward in public than confidently wrong in private.

Distribution Obsession: He keeps coming back to one slightly annoying point because it is true: great distribution often beats a better product with weak reach. That pushes decisions away from feature worship and toward the harder question of how people actually find and adopt the thing.

No Tiny Leisurely Network: Hoffman argues that network-effect businesses cannot really grow in a relaxed, artisanal way. At small scale, the value is often weak, which means the company has to push hard to reach escape velocity. It is bad news if you were hoping the network would politely build itself.

Traffic Light Governance: Hoffman uses a green, yellow, red system for CEO-board dynamics. Green means the CEO is clearly in charge, red means the board has decided the CEO is not the future, and yellow means everyone is in the awkward middle. Naming the states gives people fewer places to hide.

Questions, Not Orders: Hoffman prefers board advice to come as questions rather than commands. That protects CEO ownership and lowers the odds that a powerful outsider barges in and scrambles priorities. It is a small language choice with large consequences.

Mission Test: One of his tests for a new CEO is whether the person would still want the job if the pay were meaningfully lower. He is trying to sort true commitment from executive tourism.

We hear “be yourself” all the time, but that advice is not very useful when you are not even sure what drives you. This clip explains it in a simple, clear way.

Enjoying the newsletter? Please forward this issue to a friend who might enjoy it too 😊🙏🏻

It only takes 10 seconds. Making this one took us 9 hours…