Gapingvoid

One of my favorite t-shirts has the motto: "I'm not delusional. I'm an entrepreneur." From the gapingvoid group. https://www.gapingvoid.com/?s=I%27m+not+delusional

You're not the only one. I wouldn't categorize my current place of employment as "enterprise", but it sucks not being able to design to your full potential. It's an agency, so you can't give the client the best you can do unless they're willing & able to pay for that (and many aren't). I'd recommend doing as many side projects as you can. I know it can be hard to find the time (I have a one year old son so I'm familiar with the struggle) but if you can put something together over a few nights/weekends, and really design the hell out of it, it'll make stomaching your day-job constraints much easier. Just remember the Sex and Cash theory: http://gapingvoid.com/?s=sex+and+cash+theory What you do at work is strictly to pay the bills. If you happen to enjoy it sometimes, great; but remember that what really matters is what happens outside of that. Another example: I used to flip burgers, but I enjoy cooking at home. I wasn't ashamed of the nasty food I pumped out of that fast-food kitchen, because I knew it wasn't a representation of my cooking abilities, it was just what I did to pay the bills. Apply the same thinking to your situation.

An excellent case study for the Macleod Heirarchy. http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/

IMHO, both sides of the argument are valid. Both Money and Passion are important. Hugh MacLeod has a great perspective on this: THE SEX & CASH THEORY: "The creative person basically has two kinds of jobs: One is the sexy, creative kind. Second is the kind that pays the bills. Sometimes the task in hand covers both bases, but not often. This tense duality will always play center stage. It will never be transcended." A good example is Phil, a NY photographer friend of mine. He does really wild stuff for the indie magazines- it pays nothing, but it allows him to build his portfolio. Then he’ll go off and shoot some catalogues for a while. Nothing too exciting, but it pays the bills. Source: http://gapingvoid.com/ie

I'm both an artist and a programmer and not great at either, but this is a common issue. I'd also recommend this essay: http://gapingvoid.com/2004/07/25/how-to-be-creative All my attempts are terrible compared to what I imagined, even if I'm trying to be practical. Some of my attempts work themselves out to be better or different than what I imagined. Its a crapshoot. There are a lot of creative things I've quit on that I probably shouldn't have. I think in the end we need to embrace and be compassionate with inner noob. Sure, he's not good and he gets odd stares from non-creative people, but in the end he's the guy who blossoms into the guy who everyone dismisses as an "overnight success" or "natural talent." Everyone forgets how incredibly difficult and demoralizing it is to waste time producing sub-par work just for the off-chance that you might get good at something.

I don't think there is any mention of marketing at the cost of technical execution in the article. If your market does not know your product exists, it won't matter how good it is anyway. I'm reminded of Hugh MacLeod's brilliant cartoon "Welcome to Nobody Cares": http://www.gapingvoid.com/11444661477.jpg edit: I stand corrected. "technical execution is mostly trivial"? No thank you. I did not become an engineer to write wedding planner software.

> that's just a moderate financial risk which is much smaller than the financial risk of doing a startup If you do it the wrong way, a startup is a big financial risk. But a lot of brilliant startups get started without their founders ever putting their lives on the line. Case in point: this article. I think there's a tendency for people whose lives are unstable for other reasons to chalk it up to being brilliant. http://gapingvoid.com/2004/08/14/dying-young-is-overrated/

I love this as I think it does a good job explaining one of my favorite cartoons by Hugh MacLeod, which screams: "I'm not delusional. I'm an entrpreneur." If you think someone is delusional, maybe they're onto something and just haven't turned on their distortion field yet? http://gapingvoid.com/2010/02/28/random-thoughts-on-being-an-entrepren…

I only have a minute but.. in McLeod's case, he took it from being a mere hobby of scribbling on the back of business cards, through to refining the concept of the "social object" and, more recently, the "cube grenade." Going into what this is all about is a bit much here but this might help: http://gapingvoid.com/2007/10/24/more-thoughts-on-social-objects/ - Crucially, though, his art is specifically focused on business and is primarily sold within a business context - no galleries, often used for offices, etc. Hirst.. you could talk about for hours and go round in circles, but if you follow him for a bit you'll see a very savvy business mind at work. Not many artists have a couple hundred million dollars in their bank accounts. It's not a cynical money grab though; he's got some great ideas going on.

Truly amazing - giving away the source code! This will encourage many others, using this system, to start local micro-news channels in their own communities. Instead of the local newspaper/TV channel owning the regional media turf, this could enable discussion culture in a more democratic way. The question is... aside from hackers: who is ready for this? I remember the cartoon from Gaping Void - "the future belongs to the geeks, nobody else wants it" - http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/003301.html

I do respect your criticism, though I think it's a bit hyperbolic. While no one held a gun to my head, I was repeatedly misled by people who I believed, mistakenly, had at least a small amount of integrity. I am always reminded of the classic Hugh McLeod cartoon: http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/zzzzazzdggg49.jpg Perhaps I'm in that bottom part of the pyramid, but the top section is well populated too.

Hugh (http://www.gapingvoid.com) keeps updating the list, here: http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/000932.html Tons of good stuff.

Here's the problem as I see it: most natural interactions you have with other people almost always involve a "social object" (Here's a good introduction on the concept: http://gapingvoid.com/2007/12/31/social-objects-for-beginners/ ). Online dating sites really don't provide any useful social objects other than photos and "interests". Even socially intelligent people are going to generally fumble around a bit if they're forced to try to create a conversation with no real context. "So.. uh.. you're interested in skiing. I also like skiing too!" The other problem is that expressions of interest are incredibly overt. I think the sites tend to ignore the power of flirting. The whole point of flirting is that there has to be a sense of uncertainty. That you MIGHT be interested, if they're cool... Without a sense of flirting, you end up with the uncomfortable "shopping" sort of metaphor. I mean, think about something like facebook -- I can comment on a girls link and say something clever, without being incredibly obvious about being interested, but if she's also interested there's at least a little bit of play that can go on there, right? I don't think the solution to the dating problem is social networks per se, but there has to be some way of signalling some interest without the incredibly overt mechanisms dating sites currently offer, and there has to be a way of interacting that is a bit more indirect. Incidentally, while I don't think World of Warcraft is a great dating…

A spiritual successor to the Cluetrain was Hugh McLeod's Hughtrain: https://www.gapingvoid.com/blog/2010/10/16/the-hughtrain-mkii/ If you read it in the most cynical possible way, it actually came to fruition in a way the Cluetrain didn't.

I think this is the original source... https://www.gapingvoid.com/blog/2014/01/22/information-vs-knowledge/

I'm quite curious as to what provides for the kinds of mental 'structures' that make for so much of our inner lives. This is an old blog post, and seems to have lost the formatting, but this is the concept I'm pointing to: https://www.gapingvoid.com/blog/2004/07/31/pillar-management/ The conclusions we come to, wind up constraining the thought space of our future thoughts. I believe this cognitive process demands explanation.

> You're telling me that all I need to do to build the institution of my dreams is provide people with a sense of meaning!? LOL. http://gapingvoid.com/blog/2004/06/27/the-hughtrain/

I always preferred the Hughtrain manifesto: http://gapingvoid.com/blog/2004/06/27/the-hughtrain/

I'm sorry, but it's really difficult to take that "seminal work" seriously when that work is an in-depth analysis of the "MacLeod Model of organizational sociology". Do you know what the "MacLeod Model" is? A cartoon on the back of a business card, posted to the web without comment nine years ago: http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/ Michael O'Church might have some interesting things to say, but when he extrapolates pages of meaning from a cartoon that's just trying to be humorous, it says more about Michael O'Church than anything else.

He was probably missing the Pissed Off Gene - http://gapingvoid.com/2004/08/15/merit-can-be-bought-passion-cant/

This reminds me of #18 on Hugh MaCleod's "how to be creative" -- Avoid the Water­coo­ler Gang. http://gapingvoid.com/2004/07/25/how-to-be-creative/

Jeffery, thanks for the offer! For the rest this might lift your spirits http://gapingvoid.com/2004/07/31/pillar-management/

I preferred to scribble in the margins of my notebook during lectures; not words or likenesses of anything in particular, but kind of Hugh Macleod-ish pattern scribbles[1]. Some teachers really hated that I wasn't looking up at them and thought I was being super disrespectful, which didn't make sense to me since I was asking questions that clearly indicated I was paying attention. [1]: http://gapingvoid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/rackspace-1010-02j-55…

Also, I've always enjoyed this GapingVoid cartoon on sociopaths and the corporate hierarchy: http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/

he's taking the terminology from this cartoon: http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/ so his choice of labels has a touch of irony and is a bit harsh. Basically, he's saying you can use more euphemistic labels -- self-actualizing; process-oriented; outward-focused/idealist, etc. -- but his labels represent the unvarnished truth, with a touch of bitchiness.

Yes, it is http://gapingvoid.com/books/ by Hugh MacLeod. He draws cartoons at the back of business cards. I am sorry I didn't quote the name of the author at the first place. I couldn't recall where I had read it. I searched around for a while and couldn't find it so I just posted without the author's name but in quotes to show it was from someone other than me. Thank you for finding the book title, it helped me find the the site where I originally read this.

I used to read an article 'How to be creative'. This is the updated version: Ignore everybody http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/000932.html

http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html http://www.foundersatwork.com/steve-wozniak.html http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/000932.html

Hugh's take: http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/004739.html

There must be a bit of latent demand for cute or whimsical icons or cartoons. I remember back a while I saw an on-line 'wanted' advert for blog cartoonist. So I'm not surprised ~ http://flickr.com/photos/bootload/213561726/ If you are, please read the about how Hugh MacLeods' "gaping void ", is used as an attention grabber for marketing other products ~ http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/002670.html