6 ms·

I took time out to work on a personal project that sounds a lot like this article, a lot of what's said here resonated with me really strongly. It's funny how

I took time out to work on a personal project that sounds a lot like this article, a lot of what's said here resonated with me really strongly. It's funny how the spark of an idea and excitement can fade once the reality sets in and doesn't match what was in your head. Endlessly plugging away at it, trying force the outcome you want through sheer will can be quite exhausting and defeating. One surprising take away for me was that I missed having other people involved (it was a software project). Just having other people to be accountable to or some sort of other stakeholder that can help share the mental burden I think is key for the days when you feel unsure of the direction or purpose. I've done exactly what the article says and taken a step away for now, but hope to come back to it with a different approach and hopefully others involved.

techisneat 3y ago
I agree with working with someone. Don’t think I could do this day in and day out without a cofounder I strongly resonate with. All the smaller projects in which I was flying solo is where burnout/lost of motivation would set in so fast.
- earthling8118 3y ago
  On the other side of things I prefer going solo to having someone that I don't resonate with. I've worked with people that just don't work together well with me and that causes burnout signicantly faster.
  - techisneat 3y ago
    Fully agree with this. It’s what completely killed my first startup which did in fact have legs.
alexalx666 3y ago
I think its next to impossible to complete anything sufficiently complex if I don't enjoy the process itself
withinboredom 3y ago
I’d be interested in joining forces (I’m in the same boat) if you’re ever interested in starting back up or just want to build a project together. I’m not looking for a unicorn, just enough money where I don’t care about money and enough control that meeting-spawners won’t get hired.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  I'm not knocking your goal here, but it's not exactly unique. I'm fairly certain everyone would be fine with > just enough money where I don’t care about money and enough control that meeting-spawners won’t get hired. Implying you are wealthy and have oversight over most the company
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    > Implying you are wealthy and have oversight over most the company As an old man once told me: Wealth should not be mistaken for riches. Wealth is the ability to generate richness and experiences. You can be ridiculously wealthy but poor as a bum. I have no desire to be rich and most of us here are probably fairly wealthy. As for "oversight over most the company" I have no idea where you got that from. I just said (in so many words) "I'd like the ability to fire/remove/never hire meeting-spawners."
    - jvanderbot 3y ago
      If you control all of hiring, you have the power to shape the entire company in your image, is what I mean.
      - withinboredom 3y ago
        When did I say I wanted to control all of hiring?
        jvanderbot 3y ago
        Oh man, here we go down pedantic path. It's so important to be right. I'll explain my logic since you asked, then we can happily part ways if you'd like. > and enough control that meeting-spawners won’t get hired. Ok, you want enough control to say that any meeting-inclined person cannot join the company. This means that every person who would join the company has to appear, to you personally, to be a non-meeting-inclined person, and that if you find them too-meeting-inclined, you can veto the hire no matter how many other people want to hire them. The logical conclusion is either that you personally review every hire, or that you adjust the hiring process to include an infallible "whithinboredom approves of this hire" check, which must be conducted by every interview cycle. So, yeah, you now control the entire hiring (and presumably firing) decision process.

techisneat 3y ago

I agree with working with someone. Don’t think I could do this day in and day out without a cofounder I strongly resonate with. All the smaller projects in which I was flying solo is where burnout/lost of motivation would set in so fast.

earthling8118 3y ago
On the other side of things I prefer going solo to having someone that I don't resonate with. I've worked with people that just don't work together well with me and that causes burnout signicantly faster.
- techisneat 3y ago
  Fully agree with this. It’s what completely killed my first startup which did in fact have legs.

alexalx666 3y ago

I think its next to impossible to complete anything sufficiently complex if I don't enjoy the process itself

withinboredom 3y ago

I’d be interested in joining forces (I’m in the same boat) if you’re ever interested in starting back up or just want to build a project together. I’m not looking for a unicorn, just enough money where I don’t care about money and enough control that meeting-spawners won’t get hired.

jvanderbot 3y ago
I'm not knocking your goal here, but it's not exactly unique. I'm fairly certain everyone would be fine with > just enough money where I don’t care about money and enough control that meeting-spawners won’t get hired. Implying you are wealthy and have oversight over most the company
- withinboredom 3y ago
  > Implying you are wealthy and have oversight over most the company As an old man once told me: Wealth should not be mistaken for riches. Wealth is the ability to generate richness and experiences. You can be ridiculously wealthy but poor as a bum. I have no desire to be rich and most of us here are probably fairly wealthy. As for "oversight over most the company" I have no idea where you got that from. I just said (in so many words) "I'd like the ability to fire/remove/never hire meeting-spawners."
  - jvanderbot 3y ago
    If you control all of hiring, you have the power to shape the entire company in your image, is what I mean.
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      When did I say I wanted to control all of hiring?
      - jvanderbot 3y ago
        Oh man, here we go down pedantic path. It's so important to be right. I'll explain my logic since you asked, then we can happily part ways if you'd like. > and enough control that meeting-spawners won’t get hired. Ok, you want enough control to say that any meeting-inclined person cannot join the company. This means that every person who would join the company has to appear, to you personally, to be a non-meeting-inclined person, and that if you find them too-meeting-inclined, you can veto the hire no matter how many other people want to hire them. The logical conclusion is either that you personally review every hire, or that you adjust the hiring process to include an infallible "whithinboredom approves of this hire" check, which must be conducted by every interview cycle. So, yeah, you now control the entire hiring (and presumably firing) decision process.