Categories
Business Startups

They Love Having Meetings

Paul Graham posted on X this morning:

The danger of selling to big companies, if you’re a startup, is that they don’t say no outright. They have months of meetings with you first. Since you hate meetings, that seems to you a sign of commitment. But it’s not. They love having meetings! It’s almost all they do.

The founder walks out of the third or fourth session feeling hopeful. The room was full. People took notes. Someone said “interesting” more than once. A follow-up got scheduled. In the founder’s world, that much calendar time is expensive. It feels like proof that something is moving.

It isn’t. And this is easier to see from the other side of the table than from the founder’s.

Inside the big company, the meeting isn’t a delay before the work โ€” it is the work. It’s how progress gets demonstrated, how risk gets spread thin enough that no one owns the outcome alone. A series of meetings can continue for months without anyone deciding yes or no, and nobody in the room experiences this as failure. The process is functioning as designed. No one has to kill the idea, because no one was ever positioned to fully own it. The calendar keeps filling because filling the calendar was most of the job.

The founder, who hates meetings for good reason, reads the big company’s willingness to keep talking as commitment. It’s a natural misreading, because outside a large organization, sustained attention almost always signals intent. Inside one, it can just as easily signal the opposite: an idea comfortable enough to keep discussing precisely because no one has been asked to stake anything on it.

The cost isn’t only the founder’s calendar. Energy that could have gone into shipping for actual buyers goes instead into decks, talking points, and the ongoing work of interpreting vague enthusiasm โ€” real work, spent guessing at a decision someone else was never going to make. When the process ends โ€” a polite “not at this time,” or more often just silence โ€” the damage isn’t only the lost months. It’s the false signal that kept the founder from spending those months elsewhere.

The people on the other side of the table who move faster are the rare ones still able to say yes without assembling a committee to say it with them. Those conversations are shorter. They produce actual outcomes instead of follow-ups. They’re rare precisely because they require someone willing to own a decision alone โ€” and most large organizations are built, deliberately or not, to make that as uncomfortable as possible.

Graham’s observation is simple and sharp because it names a quiet trap. The absence of a no is not the presence of a yes. Sometimes the most expensive thing a large company can offer a startup isn’t money, or even time. It’s the appearance of being taken seriously.

Categories
Business Startups Venture Capital

Great Open-Field Runners

The plane was somewhere over Nebraska. Dick Kramlich sat across from me. We were on the same board then, and the rides together had become their own kind of conversation. He talked 1:1 the way certain men do when the clock has stopped mattering: without hurry, without the need to impress.

I asked him the question that had been riding with me for a while. After decades of sitting with founders, after watching tens of companies rise or disappear, what was the difference? What separated the ones that made it from the ones that simply ran out of road?

He didn’t answer right away. He looked out the window for a moment, then back.

They had done a study once, he said โ€” a hard look at outcomes, not opinions. What it found stuck with him ever after: the companies that survived were almost never the ones that had stuck to the plan. Success required the pivot. Not once, but again and again, until the company that arrived was almost unrecognizable from the one that had set out.

Then he gave the image that has stayed with me longer than any spreadsheet or term sheet.

He looked for great open-field runners.

Not the ones who could only run between the tackles, powering straight ahead into the line. The ones who could see daylight where it did not yet exist, who could plant a foot and cut, who understood that the shortest path is rarely the one that gets you home. Zig and zag. Feel the defense shift and refuse to be trapped by the original play call. Keep the ball moving toward the only thing that matters: the space that opens when you stop insisting the field must look the way you imagined it on the whiteboard.

I have carried that sentence for years. Great open-field runners.

It never felt elegant inside the room.

Kramlich had seen enough to know that the founders who could do this were rare. The ones who lasted treated the plan the way a great running back treats the designed play: as a starting point, not a contract with the universe. They trusted the daylight more than the diagram.

I think about him sometimes when the ground shifts under something I thought was settled โ€” when a strategy that once felt inevitable begins to feel like a trap, when the clean line on the page starts to look like a cage.

Dick is gone now. The rides are over. But the image remains, clean and sharp as the day he offered it at thirty thousand feet: a runner in open space, eyes up, cutting toward the light that only appears after you abandon the path you thought you were supposed to take.

Categories
Business Creativity Innovation Inspiration

The Idea That Won’t Let Go

“There are three elements to every great idea: 1. It solves for ‘why.’ Long before you figure out what a product will do, you need to understand why people will want it. The ‘why’ drives the ‘what.’ 2. It solves a problem that a lot of people have in their daily lives. 3. It follows you around. Even after you research and learn about it and try it out and realize how hard it’ll be to get it right, you can’t stop thinking about it.”
โ€” Tony Fadell, Build

The third element is the only one that isn’t optional. You can fake the why โ€” retrofit it, hire a consultant to write it on a slide in a font called Montserrat. You can borrow the what; most products are just other products in a better jacket. You cannot fake the third thing, because the whole test of it is that it happens without your permission.

Call it a visitation. It shows up uninvited at the stoplight, in the shower, at 2:40 a.m. when the ceiling becomes a screen for it. You know the unit economics don’t work. You know the regulatory path is nine years long. You know โ€” you know โ€” that fourteen better-funded people already tried this and left with nothing but a Delaware C-corp and a grudge. None of it helps. The idea has already filed its paperwork. It lives here now.

You cannot bullet-point a visitation. There is no OKR for thinking about landing gear hydraulics while your wife is telling you about her sister’s wedding. Everyone who’s built something that mattered will tell you this, late enough at a dinner and honest enough on the wine: not conviction, not passion โ€” that laminated word โ€” but the visitor, still standing in the doorway of every other thought you’re supposed to be having.

It doesn’t check your calendar. It doesn’t care that you’ve moved on to point two, the sensible one, the one venture capitalists nod along to with their flat whites going warm. It was never about the market. The market is the alibi you build afterward, so you don’t have to say the true thing: I didn’t choose it. It moved in while I was asleep, and my life rearranged itself around the shape of it, the way a house rearranges itself around a family it didn’t ask for.

Maybe the third element isn’t a filter for the idea. Maybe it’s a filter for you โ€” a way of finding out, by accident, at 2:40 in the morning, staring at a ceiling that has decided to keep the light on.

Categories
AI Startups

A New Reason to Launch

โ€œBefore you launch, the speed you can build is now mainly limited by your imagination in what you tell AI. After you launch, the AI can watch your users and make improvements on its own.โ€
โ€” Jared Friedman, Y Combinator

Jared Friedman watches hundreds of founders a year navigate the gap between idea and launched product. He notices patterns the rest of us miss. And what heโ€™s describing above is not an incremental improvement in how software gets built. It is a change in the nature of the advantage.

This is a different kind of liberation than founders have known before.

The old liberation was launch early and the market corrects your wrong assumptions. Humbling, but useful. You were still the one doing the correcting, late at night, rewriting the onboarding flow based on what the data told you.

The new liberation heโ€™s describing is something closer to multiplication. You launch, and now there are effectively more of you. The AI is watching session replays youโ€™ll never have time to watch. Itโ€™s noticing the drop-off after step three that youโ€™d have caught in month four. Itโ€™s holding the pattern of a thousand user paths simultaneously and asking what they mean. Your imagination seeded the thing. Reality is now feeding it.

That observation redraws the map cleanly. Pre-launch and post-launch used to differ in degree โ€” you knew more after than before. Now they differ in kind. Pre-launch you are the sensing organ. Post-launch youโ€™ve grown new ones.

The founders who feel this most viscerally, I suspect, are the ones building alone or in pairs โ€” the people for whom every previous era of building had a hard ceiling imposed by human hours. They could only read so many support tickets. They could only run so many experiments. The ceiling is lifting and the feeling is of a room getting larger.

The core advice hasnโ€™t changed. Paul Graham was saying โ€œlaunch earlyโ€ twenty years ago and it was true then. Whatโ€™s changed is the reason underneath it โ€” the mechanism that makes it true now is nothing like the one he had in mind.

The advice is twenty years old. There is a new reason and it is brand new. Most people havenโ€™t noticed the swap yet. But they will.

That window does not stay open long.

Categories
Business Storytelling

The Closed Laptop

The conference rooms all look the same after a while. Same long table. Same chairs that cost more than they should. Same window with the same view of the same parking lot baking in the same California sun. You stop seeing them. You develop a kind of practiced receptivity, a professional openness that is also, if you are honest, a professional distance. You have heard the story before. You know where you are in the presentation without looking at the slide number.

Until the day someone sits down across from you and closes their laptop and says: can I just tell you our story?


Fred Wilson, the venture capitalist at Union Square Ventures, has spent forty years learning to tell the difference between founders who can build and founders who can make you believe. The skill he overweights now, heโ€™ll tell you plainly, isnโ€™t technical. Itโ€™s selling. Recruiting, fundraising, convincing customers, inspiring teams. โ€œActually being able to write code,โ€ he said recently, โ€œis probably not a big deal anymore.โ€ What matters is whether you can cross the distance between your vision and someone elseโ€™s imagination and deposit something true and alive on the other side.

Most founders never figure this out. They build the deck instead. They pull the projector cable from the drawer โ€” there is always a drawer, there is always a cable โ€” and the room fills with blue light and bullet points and the comfortable geometry of a prepared presentation, and what never happens is the thing that needed to happen.

But there was this one morning.


He came in with his cofounder in the flat gray light that Silicon Valley gets in February, when the rain has stopped but the sky hasnโ€™t decided what it wants to be. They were early. He set his bag down and sat directly across from me โ€” not at the presenterโ€™s angle, not with one eye already calculating the distance to the screen โ€” directly across, the way you sit with someone you already know, or intend to. Neither of them reached for the cable in the drawer.

He looked at me with the particular steadiness of a person who has decided not to manage the moment.

Can I just tell you our story?

I want to be honest about what happened next, which is that I felt something shift before he said another word. Not a decision exactly. More like the precondition for a decision, the ground tilting slightly in a direction I hadnโ€™t chosen. I was, in some way I couldnโ€™t have defended rationally at the time, already with him. And I knew it, and I knew it was not an entirely reasonable response to a man who had been in the room for less than a minute, and I felt it anyway.

The laptop stayed closed for the next twenty minutes. No transitions. No bullet points. No hockey stick arcing toward a number reverse-engineered from a desired outcome. Just his voice and what he believed and the quality of attention you give a person when there is nothing else in the room to look at.

The deck came later. It was beautiful. By then it didnโ€™t need to be anything except true.


Storytelling is not a skill in the way that financial modeling is a skill. It is older than that by such a margin that the comparison almost doesnโ€™t make sense. What we are really talking about is the oldest technology human beings possess โ€” a person in a room, a voice, an image made of nothing but words and the willingness to believe in them. It was doing its work around fires forty thousand years before the first conference room was built, and it has never once required a projector.

What the great storytellers understand, and what the best founders understand in the same unspoken way, is that a story is not a transfer of information. It is a transfer of inner states. When it works โ€” when it really works โ€” something that existed inside one person gets reconstructed inside another, and the listener emerges changed. Not persuaded. Not informed. Changed. These are different experiences, and only one of them makes a person willing to bet their career on something that doesnโ€™t exist yet.

The deck puts glass between the teller and that possibility. The founder stands at the edge of the blue light pointing at things, and the room evaluates the things, and what never happens is the transfer. Everyone files out having formed opinions about the slides rather than beliefs about the person. Opinions and beliefs are not the same.

Wilson understands this even if he wouldnโ€™t use these words. When he says the skill is selling, what he means underneath the selling is: can this person walk into a room and make other people inhabit their vision? Not convince them. Inhabit. The difference is the difference between reading about a place and being there. One of them changes how you act. The other one you forget on the drive home.


The projector cable is still in the drawer. Someone will pull it out next week, and the room will fill with blue light, and another founder will stand at the edge of it pointing at things, hoping that the right font and the right graph will do the work that only a human being, exposed and without props, can actually do.

It wonโ€™t. It never does.

The CEO who closed his laptop had been carrying a story he believed in, and he knew the story was the thing, not the packaging around it. He understood that the oldest container is also the most powerful one. His own voice. A room. Someone willing to listen.

I was ready to work with him before he said another word.

Categories
Friends Gratitude Kindness Living

The One Thing Money Doesnโ€™t Buy

Somewhere there is a couch that launched a hedge fund.

It belonged to a man named Carter, and for the better part of a year it was where Dan Loeb slept while he figured out what came next. No office. No fund. No Third Point. Just a friendโ€™s apartment and the specific grace of someone who didnโ€™t need you to have already become something before they let you in the door.

When Loeb finally landed at Jefferies, Carter gave him a few hundred thousand dollars to manage. That became a million. The million became seed capital. Third Point was built on top of it โ€” thirty years of it, billions of dollars of it โ€” and all of it traces back, in some straight unbroken line, to a couch and a person who said yes before the evidence was in.

Patrick Oโ€™Shaughnessy asked him about it near the end of a long conversation. The kindest thing anyone has ever done for you โ€” itโ€™s the question Oโ€™Shaughnessy always asks, and it always cuts through. Loeb had just finished making a case for kindness as a serious value, not a soft one. Something that belongs at the top of the hierarchy, he said, next to honesty and intelligence. The mechanism that unlocks empathy. He noted, almost reluctantly, that it also compounds in business โ€” before adding that the moment you start treating it as an investment, youโ€™ve already lost the thread.

Then he quoted Palmer Luckey.

The one thing money doesnโ€™t buy you is friends that believed in you when you had nothing.

Luckey built Oculus in his parentsโ€™ garage. Sold it for two billion. Founded Anduril. He has spent his adult life proving that if you are relentless and strange and right, you can make almost anything happen with money. And what he noticed, somewhere in all of that, is where money stops. Not at luxury. Not at access. It stops at loyalty that predates your success. You cannot purchase the memory of Carterโ€™s couch. You cannot acquire, at any price, the specific knowledge that someone held you when you were nothing yet.

I have been thinking about the people in my own life who did some version of this. Not always with money. A call made on your behalf before you knew you needed it. A door held open to a room you couldnโ€™t see. These moments are nearly invisible when they happen. They only become legible later, once the room turns out to matter โ€” once you can look back and trace the line.

The line is always shorter than you think. And it always ends at a person.

Categories
Business

The Geometry of Focus: Finding the Limiting Factor

In the modern landscape of high-stakes management, there is a recurring temptation to solve everything at once. We are taught to optimize across the boardโ€”to improve efficiency by 2% here, 5% thereโ€”until the entire machine hums. But in a recent conversation with John Collison and Dwarkesh Patel, Elon Musk repeatedly returned to a single, almost obsessive mantra: the “limiting factor.”

It is a deceptively simple phrase. It suggests that at any given moment, there is one specific bottleneck that dictates the speed of the entire enterprise. If you aren’t working on that, you aren’t really moving the needle. You are merely polishing stuff.

“I think people are going to have real trouble turning on like the chip output will exceed the ability to turn chips onโ€ฆ the current limiting factor that I seeโ€ฆ in the one-year time frame itโ€™s energy power production.”

Muskโ€™s management technique is not about broad oversight; it is about a radical, almost violent prioritization. He looks at the timelineโ€”one year, three years, ten yearsโ€”and asks: What is the wall we are about to hit? Right now, it might be the availability of GPUs. In twelve months, it might be the physical gigawatts of electricity required to plug them in. In thirty-six months, it might be the thermal constraints of Earthโ€™s atmosphere, necessitating a move to space.

This approach requires a high “pain threshold.” To solve a limiting factor, you often have to lean into acute, short-term struggle to avoid the chronic, slow death of stagnation. John Collison noted this during the interview:

“Most people are willing to endure any amount of chronic pain to avoid acute painโ€ฆ it feels like a lot of the cases we’re talking about are just leaning into the acute painโ€ฆ to actually solve the bottleneck.”

For many leaders, the “limiting factor” is often something they aren’t even looking at because it lies outside their perceived domain. A software CEO might think their limit is talent, when itโ€™s actually the speed of their internal decision-making. A manufacturer might think itโ€™s raw materials, when itโ€™s actually the morale of the factory floor.

To manage by the limiting factor is to admit that 90% of what you could be doing is a distraction. It is a philosophy of subtraction and focus. It demands that we stop asking “What can we improve?” and start asking “What is stopping us from being ten times larger?” Once you identify that wall, you throw every resource you have at it until it crumbles. And thenโ€”and this is the part that requires true staminaโ€”you immediately go looking for the next wall.

By focusing on the one thing that matters, we stop being busy and start being effective. We stop managing the status quo and start engineering what may feel like the impossible.

Categories
Africa Energy

Carrying the Light

We often imagine that the solutions to our biggest problems will be loud. We expect them to arrive with the ribbon-cutting of a massive power plant, the roar of a new turbine, or the stroke of a pen on comprehensive legislation.

But in South Africa, where the national grid has become a flickering ghost of its former self, the solution isn’t arriving with a bang. It is arriving in the form of a 23-pound box, carried by hand into a tin shack, priced at two dollars a day.

I was reading a recent story in The New York Times about the rental battery boom in townships like Tembisa. It describes a barber, Anselmo Munghabe, who was forced to close his shop for a month because the grid couldn’t keep his clippers running. His livelihoodโ€”his connection to his communityโ€”was severed not by a lack of skill, but by a lack of voltage. Then came the rental batteries: portable, solar-charged blocks of energy that can be rented, used to power a business or a nebulizer or a television, and then swapped out.

“Renting a small battery is far cheaper than buying solar panels and batteries outright. ‘I think this is a game changer,’ said Ifeoma Maloโ€ฆ ‘This is creating inclusiveness in access.'” โ€” The New York Times

There is something profoundly philosophical in this shift from the “macro” to the “micro.” For decades, the assumption was that the state provides the power, and the citizen consumes it. It was a vertical relationship, dependent on the stability of the giant at the top. But as South Africaโ€™s coal-heavy grid stumbles under the weight of age and mismanagement, that vertical trust has broken. In its place, a horizontal, modular resilience is emerging.

This isn’t just about electricity; it is about agency. When you rent a battery for the day, you are no longer waiting for permission to work, to learn, or to breathe. You are uncoupling your fate from the failures of the system. It reminds me of the way the internet decentralized informationโ€”now, solar technology and battery storage are decentralizing the very energy of life.

Of course, there is a melancholy here, too. It is an indictment of a system that forces its most vulnerable citizens to pay a premium for what should be a basic utility. And yet, there is undeniable beauty in the adaptation. We see the grandmother powering her TV to stay connected to the world, and the barber sweeping hair from the floor under the glow of an LED strip powered by stored sunlight.

We spend so much time waiting for the world to be fixed from the top down. But perhaps the real story of our time is that we are learning to carry the light ourselves, one heavy, rental box at a time.

Categories
Inspiration Living Reflection

Exploring the Seams of Freedom

โ€œAll of us have little fissures in our lives that provide us greater than normal moments of freedom. You play the seams when you identify those moments and seize them.โ€

Neal King (American Ramble)

We often conceive of our lives as following fairly rigid scripts and routines. We wake up, go to work or school, come home, eat dinner, maybe squeeze in some hobbies or time with loved ones, then go to bed and repeat. The cycles feel inescapable, like train tracks laid out before us.

But if we look closer, there are tiny fissures and fault lines running through even the most regimented of daily grinds. Moments where the iron grip of obligation loosens ever so slightly. A traffic jam that makes you late, forcing you to take an alternate route. A cancelled meeting that clears an unexpected hour in your calendar. A power outage that shuts down the office and sends everyone home early. A flat tire that happens at the worst possible time and place – like happened to me yesterday!

These are the seams that Neil King refers to in the quotation. Little rips and tears in the fabric of our routines that create momentary pockets of freedom. Openings where the rules don’t quite apply and we can slip through the cracks of the scheduled order.

The key, as King notes, is to first identify these seams when they occur, and then seize them rather than letting them pass by unnoticed or unremarked upon. It’s about being present enough to your circumstances to recognize when one of these fissures opens up, and then brave enough to diverge from the mapped out path to explore it.

After all, some of life’s greatest adventures and discoveries have happened during these “off script” moments. Yesterday, my conversation with a tow truck driver opened my eyes to the steps he took to fend off a mountain lion attack on a 5 AM run in the dark! I hope I never have to apply his techniques but I did find our conversation about his encounter fascinating!

Of course, these serendipitous detours and unplanned paths are easy to romanticize after the fact, when we know they turned out well. In the moment when the seams first crack open, it can be daunting to jump through them into the unknown. Sometimes we have to but our ingrained instinct is to stick to our set schedule, to get back on course as quickly as possible.

There’s comfort and safety in routines. Seizing those fissures when they present themselves means trading certainty for adventure, the familiarity of a well-worn groove for the risk and exhilaration of going off road into the unknown. It requires being able to quiet that voice of fear inside us that clings to control and embrace one of spontaneity and serendipity in where the detour might lead.

The rewards of following those detours down their winding paths are often worth it. While not every seam we slip through will result in a life-altering event, they allow us to break up the monotony, to experience something different from our repetitive routine, even if just for a little while. Those moments add texture and vibrancy to our days. They’re the asides and ad-libs to the main scripts we follow. Often they provide those special moments we vividly remember and want to share with others.

So keep your eyes peeled for those little fissures and unexpected openings in your routine. Don’t just impatiently wait for life to reset to its default settings once these moments arise. Seize them while you can and see where they lead you. You might just stumble into a beloved new local cafe, or finally muster the courage to start writing, or meet someone who changes your life’s trajectory and opens even more new possibilities.

The seams are there, waiting to be played whenever we’re bold enough to follow their diverging paths. All we have to do is watch for the fissures and be willing to step through into the open spaces of freedom they reveal. Who knows what new experiences and challenges await us on the other side? What new learning might result?