This is something I’ve been thinking about. I’ve always that it was interesting how they named and painted they’re planes and had that sort of connection and relationship to a specific one. I’m not evening asking if it happened, just if it would have been plausible for a fighter pilot to have been assigned the same plane throughout the world and war. I’m sorry if this sounds very uneducated, I’m just sort of getting into this aspect of history.

Hi, guys! I'm back. I've just finished reading Starset's new novel, A Brief History of the Future, and i really needed to share it.
Some of you may know me from my previous posts on the Starset lore:

• In "The Starset lore Part I: Transmissions", I covered the events told in The Prox Transmissions (Starset's first novel) and linked them to the album Transmissions.
• In "The Starset lore Part II: DivisionsThe Starset lore Part II: Divisions", I tried to gather the information we had on the new storyline, mainly based on Divisions content (Horizons hadn't released yet by then) and I shared my speculations about its meaning.

Now that I've read this book, I want to sum up what we have now. Keep in mind that, for obvious reasons, this post is all spoiler content. If you plan to read the book(s) I encourage you to do so, because I'm unveiling some of the main "plot-twists" in the second book. I won't be writing a literal summary of the book's plot (I will focus on the content more than in the "drama" -in fact, I will start at the end), but key elements of it will appear. Also, I'm taking for granted you are already familiar with the contents in The Prox Transmissions -if not, I recommend you reading my post or just dropping this post altogether and go read the book!
If you have already read the books, don't plan to read them or don't care about the spoilers, stay with me along this long post because you will discover much about Divisions, Horizons... and what's coming next!!
Let's go then!
In a unknown year the novel starts in a world dominated by a state called the New East. it's not explicit in the book, but we have reasons to identify the New East with China: it is a current superpower and the powerful people in control have Chinese names. This state is governed by a Governing Committee, composed by Ministers that stay in charge for 5 years, with an exception: the Minister of Security, also known as MinSec. He is the head of the New East's secret police and he is to remain in charge for life.
Prior to 2024, Aston Wise (remember he was one of the protagonists of the previous novel!) is locked up by the US Government. They force him to create the BMI and its Architecture. In 2024, as I have said, the New East manages to obtain it and the big war starts. This part of the story is also explained deeper in a video (called "Initial Debriefing", available in Starset's YouTube channel since September 9th, 2021), with some minor incongruencies:

In the year 2010, the US Defense Advance Research Projects Agency -or DARPA- began work on a neural link system known as the "Brain Machine Interface" developed under the highest levels of secrecy. This technology was to be used in covert espionage campaigns with the goal of giving the US a major advantage in the ever-growing cyber warfare battlefield. The intention was to use the "BMI" on unsuspecting foreign agents, giving US Intelligence a remote line into their minds. Launched in 2020 to great success, the BMI provided a window into the intentions and secrets of numerous potential adversaries. Then, in 2021, a botched operation allowed this technology to fall into the hands of an undisclosed state who would then use it agains the US itself for over a decade. This state -which came to be known as the New East- used this technology to syphon intellectual property and assert control over the US, allowing it to rise swiftly as a global superpower. In the early 2030s, the crippled US launched an attack to the New East. This was quickly thwarted. However, as the New East was fully aware and prepared, in the end, the US and its allies capitulated and became known simply as the New West. Citizens of the New West, now mostly impoverished laborers, were offered BMI implantation -sold on the wonders of its amazing benefits. Eventually though, all were made to comply. Only then did the true goals of the New East become apparent.

The New West is a de facto and de iure protectorate. The New West has its own local police -that dealt with murder and robbery-, but the military and, most important, the Civil Authorities (CA), are controlled by MinSec -focused on thought crime.
Soon after the end of the war, some people were drafted for the reclamation in Virginia by the New East army. This was a forced-labor suicide mission because it was a fallout zone. The goal was the recovery of documents from the US, such as blueprints for advanced weapons and intel. Those who survived, developed NeuroTIDS (neural tissue interface degeneration syndrome) because of the radiation.
Once in control of the US (now New West), the New East implanted into all citizens the BMI. Now, people deal with three layers of reality: unaltered reality (UR), augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR). Considering the BMI, there are three states:

• BMI glowing white (normal state: people are in UR with elements of AR).
• BMI glowing blue (also called frosting: people are in VR having some pleasant experience, while looking absent and apathetic in the outside). See an example of person frosting in the Diving Bell music video.
• BMI glowing red (also called supplication).

(There also exists the Everything Machine in this storyline. Indeed, people ate only printed food, as real food as reserved for the New East).
On top of this, there’s an intelligent algorythm or artificial intelligence in the Architecture, called the Overseer. It is capable of detecting thought crimes by accessing a person's sensory input and also altering their perceptions (for example, blurring texts from banned books). When a thought crime is detected, CAs intervene and turn the perpetrator into a supplicant. Supplicants are stuck in VR prisons while their bodies wander in the streets or are collected and put into "corrals". See an example of a supplication facility in Where the Skies Ends music video.
The protectorate of the New East upon the New West is mantained thanks to the Quantum Comunicator, which keeps both connected and also connected to the Architecture
On the other hand, there's a rebel network still in function. They manage to meet and develop their plans by modding their BMIs, so that they become undetectable under the eyes of the Overseer. Their plan is to trap the MinSec and use their credentials to get access to the Architecture and destroy it from the inside.
(In Manifest music video you can see examples of people frosting, people supplicated, the modding minor surgery, the rebels, the CAs using their "freezing" weapons and supplicating civilians and a bigwig from the New East, maybe the MinSec himself).
Also, it is said that the New East didn't manage to conquer all the Old West (US) territories. There's rumours about the socalled Western Territories, free land where some former rebels already live, though its real existence it's in never confirmed in book. In The Breach music video we can see how a family leaving in the New West takes the opportunity of escaping into the Western Territories during some sort of shutdown.
The New West capital is established in Philadelphia, where the events in A Brief History of the Future are set. Here's the Quantum Communication Center and the New West Center for Advanced Innovation (CAI), where the most brilliant programming students are sent to develop their skills and work for the New West/East. One of this students is one of the protagonists of this book, Thomas Bell (again, someone whose name we are already familiar...), who quickly proves to be the best one and gets to be chosen as the Director's assistant. Eventually we get to discover the Director is Aston Wise and later on we find out he is the Architect himself.
A feature or app of the BMI that will reveal crucial to the plot is the Shadowcast: one can frost but, instead of being conscious in a VR, "enters" inside a celebrity's mind for an hour and experiences all they are experiencing live (the user is passive and can only perceive, but not intervene or influence the shadowcast celebrity into doing anything). You can see an example of this in Symbiotic music video, where the user is finally able to successfully Occupy the body of the celebrity. In the book, when this happens, the person occupied has their BMI turned purple.
In the book, Occupation will be a tool used by Bell and Wise, but also by the government, in an attempt of using the supplicated bodies to their own purposes. The original project launched by the New East and commissioned to the Director of the CAI (Aston Wise), was called by Wise himself 'Project X'. New East wanted to present it to the citizens as a way of emancipating from work: while working, you can let yourself be occupied by the Overseer, who wil perform your job while you can be having fun in VR. In Icarus music video you can see an ad made by the New East to promote the "benefits" of this technology (called Werk here); the other ads are based on previous BMI technology (AR, VR and Shadowcast). (Fun fact: have you noticed that the actor in 3:12 is the same from the Ricochet music video?).
As I said in the beginning, it is not my goal to sum up the book's plot and even though I have already spoiled you much info and some plot-twists, I'm not telling you here how the story of the protagonists develops and how it ends. However, I can't refrain from telling you this: the last page of the book has a QR that redirects to a video that has me really excited.
In the video, we see a man. He tells us it is 2048. In spring 2026, the New East took over the US. But... guess who's back! Oh, yes, the Order! Or rather they were there all along. In fact, the man who's talking to us is Stephen Browning! On July 4th of 2026, after the New East invasion, the Order tried to launch a spacerocket to get to "a lonely planet" (Prox!), but it was intercepted by the New East and then the army destroyed their base, so they lost all hope in a future on another planet. However, they managed to hide a "time mechanism" (I guess the same they had in The Prox Transmissions) and, finally, sent a message to 2024, warning us about this future that awaits us. Then he sais:

Dear Order friends, the time has finally arrived. We're headed to space. We're going go Prox.

This announcement matches Starset's video from six months ago ("It begins. And it ends. Now."), where we see images of astronauts and spacerockets, evoking space travel. Wow! Did you miss that "space-y" aesthetic, plots and sound from Transmissions and Vessels? Because it sounds like we're getting them back! Note that at the end of this video, the three dots of the BMI are occupied by three symbols:

• The bottom one is the symbol of the Order, appears at the beginning of each chapter in The Prox Transmissions.
• The middle one is the symbol of Divisions album, I'd say it's a symbol of the rebels.
• The top one is... unknown? It is quite similar to me to the symbol in Faultline, but I guess it represents the "following chapter"? Who knows.

It also matches the music video for Starset's last single, Brave New Word! And there's more news: the end of the video linked in A Brief History Of the Future ends with a "to be continued in Spring 2025".
So... Again, there are some questions left unanswered (and I love that!): How are both books linked? Are they the same Aston Wise and Thomas Bell, but in an alternative timeline? From where will the story continue? (The Order in 2048 colonising Prox?). I'm soooo excited to learn what's coming next and to listen Starset's next album (I love Brave New World).
Let me know about your impressions, opinions, theories... feel free to add any info I could have missed, to correct any piece I could be mistake about, etc. Thank you so much for your attention (I literally created this account only to write these Starset lore posts I feel very invested to and English isn't even my first or second language), I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful!!

With BLG defeating T1 in their match to proceed to the finals vs GenG, this will be the first time since 2018 Worlds that no civil war match-up occurred which was theoretically possible at the event in the playoffs. Only 1 other event has this honor among Riot tournaments, being 2012 Worlds. The new MSI format has made this possible with 2 seeds from each major region competing and the teams being seeded against each-other taking region into account.
Below is a complete list of International Tournaments which did not have a civil war playoff match-up in which it was theoretically possible

• Worlds Season 2
• MLG 2012 Summer Arena
• IEM Season 7 Singapore
• IEM Season 7 Cologne
• IEM Season 7 Katowice
• IEM Season 8 Singapore
• IEM Season 8 World Championship
• IEM Season 9 San Jose
• IEM Season 9 Cologne
• IEM Season 9 World Championship
• IEM Season 10 San Jose
• IEM Season 10 Cologne
• IEM Season 10 World Championship
• IEM Season 11 World Championship
• 2018 Season World Championship
• 2024 Mid-Season Invitational

This goes to show that the future may be bright with the improved format and I hope to see many more international match-ups!

We are an order to preserve knowledge join us or look in it but the first thing we must do is make ages and months first I think the ages are B.L.U (before latest update) and A.L.U (after latest update) I say the latest update was 10 years ago in lore of course 5 years ago was when the first war ended with the rats and stuff then at 8 A.L.E the second war began with the new factions the months are the once in WorldBox which correlate with the months irl and now we follow the irl time so the 1st of January will be the new year aye or nay on the ages
View Poll

I honestly hate them at this point. Samsung phones make me feel like puking. I've used most of the brands out there such as Pixel, Xiaomi, OnePlus, Moto, LG, Nothing, Vivo, Oppo, Realme, Nokia, and Apple, and the worst experience so far has been with Samsung devices. I hate One UI from the bottom of my heart. Their icons look awful, and the only thing that’s better in their flagships is their cameras. I would switch to TouchWiz in a heartbeat.
Samsung used to be so cool when their phones came with TouchWiz, speaking of designs all their phones look alike apart from the flip and fold devices. Even people from the store can’t identify the devices without checking inside the phone info. Samsung used to be one of the best companies, similar to LG, when it came to innovation. They used to make cool features that are currently being flaunted by iPhone users as unique iPhone features. Back when Android was first released, they had a whole lot of unique features. Now, all they have is a bad UI and useless features.
I went from an old S series device to iPhone, and then to Samsung A series, M series, F series and back to current gen S series, before switching to mid-range and budget phones looking for a good software experience. Now, I find mid-range and budget phones far better than Samsung. Most of their recent software products were huge failures, and their recent devices were also failures. I guess the glory days of Samsung and iPhones are over since even midrange and budget phones perform better than Samsung and Apple for the average user. Budget phones integrate the best of both worlds and are providing better attention to the likes and dislikes of their users.
One UI from Samsung is so much inferior compared to stock Android provided by Pixel, Moto, OnePlus, and Nothing phones. It’s really bad when even stock Android looks way superior and better than Samsung's UI. In my opinion, Samsung is slowly but surely failing as a company. The innovation that once set them apart is gone, replaced by a homogenized, uninspired product line. It's a shame to see a company that once led the industry in such a decline.

/news
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/may/19/israel-gaza-war-live-people-killed-in-strike-nuseirat-refugee-camp-gaza?CMP=Share\_AndroidApp\_Other

I fought long and hard in the first galactic war, I have seen the ebb and flow of our enemies evolving and our weapons tech compensating, and the enemy evolving again. Research and developement do not always go smoothly, but in the end balance out.
What I am saying is the developers are doing a good job balancing the game, as us veterans know, its just not the balance people always hope for.
A primary weapon should never be able to one shot bigguns not matter how bad the player base wants to be able to pick a single gun and just kill everything with it. This is not the way. The balance that takes place is to balance and maintain the creators vision of the game which is 1) team work above all else 2) strategy and planning
The tools are there for you too succeed, but success will not be easy. Suicide mission, impossible, hell dive, they are called this for a reason, and they will balance it to maintain that reason, to force team work and strategy. The surface of the game is silly because it is a mockery of propaganda, but it is almost as deep as it can get for strategy, difficulty, and team work.
This means that for some diff 7 and up WILL NEVER BE FUN, which is totally fine, don't feel like you have to do it.
"Oh but the upgrades, I have to get the up grades" no you don't, why because those upgrades are specifically for people pushing the higher levels because they LOVE the challenge and team work, the glory of surviving, fun is the brutal difficulty and the success. If it was all balanced or rather tilted to the helldivers it would cease being fun for us cause it would be to easy and boring if I could just grab a primary and solo a hell dive without breaking a sweat or dropping a single strat. That is not a hell dive. A hell dive should make you ask "why Joel why have you done this to me?" Or rather why did I do this to myself. It should be impossible to solo 7 and up, in the first war diff from 1-15, 7 was about it for soloing on the average veteran, why because you can't prepare enough strats and weapons on your own to survive. I am sure some did it, but I also know it was a nightmare to do so.
So don't feel like you need to be a completionist, enjoy what you have, and enjoy the game at the level your comfortable with. If your a real completionist you will enjoy the struggle of a hell dive anyway, otherwise just leave it be, don't expect to be carried, don't expect the devs to give you the ultimate gun to kill everything with, it will NEVER exist, and if by some chance it does it will be NERFED.
Primary weapoms serve one purpose only, to kill little things in a variety of ways, for a variety of reasons. The balance of a primary weapon is to its role only. Long range short range, spray, accuracy, speed, all balanced in its own way.
7th commandment of Joel "know your equipment" 😁
The stratagems will be what gets you through in the end so choose wisely, pay attention to your teams loudout, fill in the gaps, or suffer the agony of defeat. Flexibility, adaptability, and coordination are key if you want to succeed not complaining about a minor nerf to an overpowered weapon, which sure its fun to sweep and clear like a god for a bit, but we are not gods, we are expendable soldiers dying by the thousands to achieve impossible victory at overwhelming odds on 2 fronts currently.
No one should judge you for nevee wanting to do a suicide mission, leave that to the hardened vets, enjoy your level of difficulty that suits your play style and makes you happy, use the tools you have as they are, the devs are on top of balance, but the balance is to maintain their vision of this game, which includes a SUICIDE MISSION, i think we should all get what that means, and they will keep it that way. Again because we must work together.
Look at what they have done, they have united the WORLD to fight together and and die together in a game with their vision. It is absolutely amazing, so give up the solo hero idea of so many other games and work with your teamates. The comraderie is real, and it is also fime if you don't take it all very seriously, but some of us do try real hard, and there is plenty of room for us to stay in our own lanes. Take a breath and appreciate this beautiful piece of art and work they have put together for us, and enjoy your niche of the game, as all levels and play contribute to the whole, but accepting what their vision is will exponentially improve the fun as you find your niche and accept the terms of your service to super earth.
May your aim always be true, and your strategems never be jammed.
Good luck have fun your own way, and remember it is supposed to be hard AF which is why we work together tp shoulder the difficulty. Joel bless and keep you.

Do you think we have way more pressing problems at the moment other than to be a republic Do you think that when we leave the Crown someone else is going to come and Bribe their way into taking over With how the world is going, everybody going to war do we think it's the best idea I just would not want us to end up like Haiti you know I think if we did become a republic decision should go to The People Because I don't think none of us wants a dictator or for china to come take over more than how they already have….

Edelgard is the hero. The only moral greyness here is that she works with the Dubstep Molemen instead of trying to kill them all a day after becoming the Emperor... If she fails she wants to die by Dimitri's hand... She didn't have Hubert reach out to Claude about the Slitherers... She's willing to sacrifice Bernie if forced to... she was too hurt to reach out to the other House Leaders and try to get them on her side while they have no good excuse for not reaching out to her and taking the risk of opening up to them means taking the risk they will ruin her only shot at the power needed to change things... and she's willing to risk the Slitherers defeating her after she conquers the other nations.
Dimitri is a lunatic who eventually gets over it. The story takes for granted that he is always justified and necessary and his redemption and rise as a good King is worth whatever it takes to get there. Where this story normally has the balls to call out bad Lords and bad Nobles and bad Goddesses, it falls apart with Dimitri because they want to sell funko pops of him. Dimitri has people in his House who were hurt by Nobility or Crests or both yet they never get to make a coherent argument for continuing the nobility because to argue for such a thing is impossible without assuming the system is right to privilege the lucky and hold down the many. No, not anyone can wield a speshul weapon, so these people should be soldiers who can dedicate their lives to training and battle, these people should not be high ranking government officials overburdened with other responsibilities. The Crested, the Nobles, the Royals, they are not inherently better than commoners, and the system should not treat them as such.
Rhea had countless years to get over her losses and stop experimenting on people. Countless years to try harder to remedy the abuses of power in her system.
It is bad writing that Hubert enjoys going mwahaha and likes being feared and hated and was raised to be a fanatically devoted servant of Lady Edelgard because when he is that, there is no interesting tension in who he is as a person, what he wants to be, what he has been through, what he wants for the world. Dedue is written the way he is to humanize the victims of Duscur blamed for the Tragedy of Duscur and humanize Dimitri because Dimitri didn't blame Dedue for all of this and try to slay him on the spot, Dimitri tried to save him, and Dedue continues to serve Dimitri despite how he is hated because that's what a big deal Dimitri is to Dedue. When Dedue becomes a monster it's written as a noble sacrifice, and when Edelgard and some of her nameless faceless soldiers become monsters it's written as a tragic loss of humanity. Even though it would have been so much stronger if the Black Eagles Strike Force got to have that moment with the Crest Stones, not faceless Empire troops. Make them survive longer than they did if need be, Hubert survived death enough times.
Edelgard isn't "a literal fascist", she doesn't even give a damn about railroads. I bet she's never read a single book on fascism by actual fascists. Or a book on fascism by people who detest fascism and would surely definitely totally represent it more honestly than anyone else and understand it better than anyone else too.
Yes, I believe it is bad writing when the writers of this game try to paint Edelgard as someone more morally grey than she is while painting her opposition as better people than they are. Yes, I believe it is unfair to hold Edelgard responsible for what she potentially does in routes that demonize her while refusing to give her credit for what she does in routes where she is the hero. Yes, I believe it is unreasonable for her haters to say "She is evil for working with the Slitherers instead of taking them out overnight" as if that would be easy when they have a nuclear missile and Nemesis and as much control over the Kingdom as they want. Edelgard's flaws make her an interesting complex hero and Dimitri and Rhea's flaws make them interesting detestable villains. More interesting than the Slitherers.
Remind me again, what's that nonsense platitude Dimitri spouts when it comes to Edelgard's hatred of the Goddess who failed her, and her belief that mankind is better without such delusional superstition? Something about him believing people are strong where she believes they are weak, or vice reversa, or something something cycle of violence? Edelgard is right to detest the myth of the Goddess who failed to save her family. It's not like she plans to outlaw it across all of Fodlan once she takes the throne.
Would you say the cops are going too far if, instead of giving a billion dollar company a fine of a few million dollars for killing and failing people, they ensured the people responsible were punished appropriately and got replaced no matter who was willing to die to violently defend them and the power they abuse?
Every time the writers try pretending Edelgard is "pushing things too far too fast" they make excuses for the system and its injustices and act as if it's the victim's responsibility to ensure the continuity of authority or the peaceful transfer of power. Dimitri is a terrible king and so was his father. Claude couldn't protect Lysithea. Edelgard strives to make a better world without the problems that create people like Edeglard, Dimitri, Lysithea, Dorothea, Hanneman, Mercedes, Jeritza, Byleth, and more. In the routes where Edelgard doesn't win, we are told things still got better because this is a video game meant to sell characters and it would harm the FEH profits if people who picked a house solely for a character they were attracted to were told this results in a bad ending where the problems only Edelgard truly cared about enough continue to plague the continent. For as much as this story roleplays as a deep nuanced tale of countries and ideologies at war, this is still a product under capitalism meant to sell, and the most financially viable route under capitalism is to "Both sides" the problems the rich and powerful and privileged create for the underdogs and demonize any underdogs who "go too far" to preserve the illusion of neutrality. Even though being neutral on a question like "Should the system that enabled the family problems of Mercedes and Bernadetta continue or be annihilated across all of Fodlan by any means necessary?" is abominable.

All The Mods 9 is a Minecraft modpack with every category in it including magic, tech, exploration, building, quality of life, automation, and so much more! If that sounds interesting, look no further than FrinkaMC. With the latest hardware (AMD 7600x, 40gb RAM), tps will always be playable. Spawn is made by community members and there is no p2w stuff, keeping the classic Minecraft server vibe.
Benefits:

• 15K world border
• World map (mapatm.frinkamc.com)
• MC2Discord (ingame discord chat)
• Community-made spawn
• Anti-grief spawn (new players will need at least 4 hours of playtime to edit spawn)
• RTP to 5K
• Nothing p2w, just a dude hosting a server.
• Constant monitoring & maintenance to minimize lag.
• Passionate owner (once fixed someones corrupted base)
• Average tps above 15
• Regular backups (every 6h)

It's online and public, so if you want to join you're welcome! Please note you will need the custom client to join. Feel free to shoot me a dm on discord if you have any questions.
IP: play.atm.frinkamc.com ^((Current version: v0.2.58. Join the discord for the latest information\)*)
Discord: https://discord.gg/a3dfATuJAM

All The Mods 9 is a Minecraft modpack with every category in it including magic, tech, exploration, building, quality of life, automation, and so much more! If that sounds interesting, look no further than FrinkaMC. With the latest hardware (AMD 7600x, 40gb RAM), tps will always be playable. Spawn is made by community members and there is no p2w stuff, keeping the classic Minecraft server vibe.
Benefits:

• 15K world border
• World map (mapatm.frinkamc.com)
• MC2Discord (ingame discord chat)
• Community-made spawn
• Anti-grief spawn (new players will need at least 4 hours of playtime to edit spawn)
• RTP to 5K
• Nothing p2w, just a dude hosting a server.
• Constant monitoring & maintenance to minimize lag.
• Passionate owner (once fixed someones corrupted base)
• Average tps above 15
• Regular backups (every 6h)

It's online and public, so if you want to join you're welcome! Please note you will need the custom client to join. Feel free to shoot me a dm on discord if you have any questions.
IP: play.atm.frinkamc.com ^((Current version: v0.2.58. Join the discord for the latest information\)*)
Discord: https://discord.gg/a3dfATuJAM

“Stop the inane chanting” I write to address a serious societal issue - one that has been front and center in the hearts and minds of those who have been watching on television the amazing run of the Timberwolves during the playoffs. Someone must call it out: the silly, consistent and sophomoric practice of those who shell out serious bucks to attend the games and shout "DEFENSE, DEFENSE, DEFENSE," each time the other team has the ball.
OK, granted, this is a first-world problem and certainly does not rise to the significance of famine in Ethiopia, the ongoing suffering of innocent Palestinians in Gaza or the devastation of Putin's war in Ukraine. But this issue is one that is within our grasp to resolve.
What, pray tell, is the purpose of this loud and annoying and constant chant? Do the fans at Target Center think their team is unaware that the other team has the ball? Do they want us, the TV audience, to be aware of what phase of the game we are watching? Maybe they are just victims of the throbbing drumbeat at Target Center, which encourages them to act like children and imitate the Republican Convention-goers in 2016 when their chosen chant was "LOCK HER UP, LOCK HER UP, LOCK HER UP." Makes one wonder if a variation of that chant will reappear this summer at the Republican convention.
Enough said! Your chant is childish! Stop it! KARL CAMBRONNE, Golden Valley”
Source: https://x.com/kgformvp211/status/1792074263266267575?s=46

During the height of my high regard for the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), among the movies of which I had been a major fan were the Captain America releases. At least two of them. The third film in this mini franchise - 2016's "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" proved to be a major disappointment for me. However, when I heard that Disney and Marvel Films had plans to air a miniseries about the characters Sam Wilson aka the Falcon and James "Bucky" Barnes aka the Winter Soldier, I must admit that I felt a renewed interest in the franchise again.
When I said a renewal of the MCU franchise, I meant it. Aside from a few movies like "ANT-MAN", "BLACK PANTHER", "CAPTAIN MARVEL" and "ETERNALS"; the MCU had become a major disappointment for me ever since the release of 2015's "THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON". One might ask . . . what about the MCU television productions that aired on the Disney Plus streaming channel? Aside from one production that I somewhat liked and one that I loved, most of them have been disappointing to me. Unfortunately, I have to include this follow-up to the Captain America movies, "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER".
Set six months after 2019's "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME", "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER" followed former war veteran/Avenger Sam Wilson, who has resumed working the for the U.S. government, while using his role as the Falcon. When the government recruits Sam to track down and deal with a group of enhanced anarchists known as "the Flag Smashers", former World War II veteran/HYDRA tool/Avenger James "Bucky" Buchannan aka the Winter Soldier decides to join Sam in his mission, due to his lingering guilt as a former HYDRA assassin and their shared experiences as Steve Rogers' close friends and battling Thanos and his army.
Since "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER" had aired on the DisneyPlus channel in six episodes, I had seriously considered ranking the episodes. But like Season three of the Marvel Netflix series, "DAREDEVIL", the more I watched "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLIDER", the more it disappointed me. Aside from complaints about its pacing, the limited series had received a great deal of praise from critics and fans alike. Because of this, I believe it was one of the most overrated productions in the MCU history. People had seemed so focused on little moments and scenes that very few had noticed how the series' narrative seemed to be all over the map. For example:
~\Sam Wilson~* - This limited series is supposed to be a follow up to the events of "ENDGAME" in which Sam had received the Captain America shield from an aging Steve Rogers, a sign for him to take up the latter's costumed role. Was this an attempt by Marvel Films/Disney to make Sam a more relevant character? If so, why? Why did a MCU character have to replace Steve as the new Captain America to be more relevant? Why not allow Sam to continue as the Falcon, only push his role to the forefront as one of the franchise's new leading characters? Some might accuse me of not wanting a black man as Captain America, a topic that was brought up in the series. Frankly, I never wanted another character - regardless of race, gender or ethnicity - to become the new Captain America. That includes Bucky Barnes. Allow Steve Rogers to fade into the background and let Sam (as the Falcon) shine as one of the franchise's new leads. However, the die has been cast. One can only sit back and see if moviegoers are willing to accept Sam as the new Captain America.
Perhaps the MCU had to make Sam the new Captain America in order to make him more relevant. Why would I say that? The showrunner for "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER", Malcolm Spellman, came dangerously close to shoving Sam into the role of the second lead or worst, a role he has been since his debut in 2014's "CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER" - a supporting character. During the series' first three or four episodes, someone other than Sam (either Bucky Barnes or Helmut Zemo - two white men) made decisions that allowed the plot to move forward, not Sam. He was simply regulated to being an observer or reactor. The series even managed to undermine Sam's decision not to support the Sokovia Accords in "CIVIL WAR". In thee 2016, Sam became the first Avenger to speak out against the Accords and declare his intentions not to sign it. Yet, according to Bucky in this series, Sam had merely followed Steve's example in rejecting the Accords. And Spellman did nothing to allow Sam to correct this misconception.
~\James "Bucky" Barnes~* - One of the few aspects of "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" I found enjoyable proved to be the interactions between Sam Wilson and Bucky Buchannan. Despite their lingering jealousy and competition over the role as "Steve Rogers' best friend", the pair's interactions proved to be very entertaining, thanks to the screen chemistry between Anthony Mackie and Sebastian Stan. Unfortunately, Mackie and Stan could not save "CIVIL WAR" for me. Nor could they save "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER", due to its problematic writing. A good deal of that writing surrounded Bucky's character. I have so many questions about his role in this series. For example:
-Why would any official of the Joint Counter Terrorist Center allow Bucky to visit and question Helmut Zemo, the man responsible for the U.N. conference bombing in Vienna, in "CIVIL WAR"? That made very little sense to me. Surely the JCTC authorities remembered how Zemo managed to brainwash Bucky into making his own prison break in "CIVIL WAR"? Also, Bucky was on parole for his activities as a brainwashed HYDRA assassin. Yet, the JCTC had allowed him to visit Zemo? Surely, the showrunner could have allowed Sam, who was serving the U.S. government again, to be the one to visit and question Zemo?
-How on earth did Bucky managed to evade being arrested and charged for helping Zemo escape from the JCTC? The U.S. and other governments should have been suspicious of Bucky after learning about his visit to Zemo.
-Bucky came off as an arrogant school jock, who thought he was entitled to get his way - especially in his interactions with Sam. I found it hilarious that many fans had criticized John Walker aka Captain America aka U.S. Agent for such toxic behavior. Yet, they had turned a blind eye to Bucky's own behavior. And so did the series - up until the last two episodes. Why did the showrunner allow Bucky to get away with this behavior toward Sam for so long without any complaints from the latter?
-I did not care how Bucky had bullied his way into Sam's mission without the latter's consent. What I found even more annoying was the U.S. government's decision to allow Bucky to join Sam's mission after that ludicrous "therapy session" they were forced to attend together.
~\Racism -~* A good number of MCU fans had complained about the inclusion of racism in "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER". I had no problems with this direction, considering the story was about Sam, an African-American man, becoming the new Captain America. However, I had a good deal of problems with how the production explored the topic of racism.
The story of Isaiah Bradley, Marvel's second Captain America, had originated in the comics. In the MCU, he was a Korea War veteran whom the United States Army used as one of several unwilling African-American test subjects for their version of the Super Soldier serum. I realize that both Marvel Comics and the MCU had attempted to use Bradley's experience as a metaphor for the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. The problem is that I cannot see the U.S. government and the Army - both racist organizations in the early 1950s - be willing to risk the possibility of creating a non-white super soldier. Despite the recent desegregation of the Armed Forces in the late 1940s. And both the government and the Army had been more than willing to use white soldiers in other experiments.
After saving a group of black American super soldiers from a prison camp, Bradly was imprisoned by the U.S. government for thirty years. I saw nothing wrong with this twist in the character's narrative, until I remembered two things - Bradley had been able to free his fellow soldiers without anyone's help; and nearly sixty years later, Steve Rogers managed to break into the Raft and free those Avengers who had refused to sign the Sokovia Accord. Why was Bradley unable to free himself from prison? This is the man who had defeated the Winter Soldier by breaking the latter's metal arm. And he was not powerful enough to make a prison break, let alone evade capture?
I had assumed Sam's difficulty in becoming the new Captain America would stem from the government's reluctance to recruit a black man for the position. That would explain their decision to recruit the blond-haired John Walker instead. But the series never really made it clear whether political racism had played a role in Walker's recruitment. The series also had James "Rhodey" Rhodes had paid Sam a visit, emphasizing the importance of the new Captain America being black. As it turned out, Sam's own insecurities about becoming Captain America had more to do with him not initially assuming the role. There was also that interesting scene outside Bradley's Baltimore home where the police arrested Sam during verbal argument with Bucky. Although the cops backed away when they recognized Sam as an Avenger, they ended up arresting the parolee Bucky for missing his required therapy appointment. This scene was supposed to be a case of racial profiling. But . . . we might as well be honest. In the real world, the police would not have backed down from hassling Sam. What I found more disturbing was the production's handling of Bucky's arrest. Once the police discovers that Sam was an Avenger; they turned to arrest Bucky for failing to show up for his missing his therapy session. Not only did the police arrest Bucky with a more gentle behavior, they did so, accompanied by Henry Jackman's mournful score, something that did not accompany the moment of Sam being arrested. Were the audiences expected to notice the hypocrisy and racism in the police's handling of the two men? Expected to feel sympathy for Bucky? Or both?
The last episode featured a scene of two black kids playing with toy Captain America shields. Someone had commented that the shields (especially in the hands of non-white children) represented hope to the future of race relations in the United States. Why? How? This country had a biracial president for EIGHT YEARS. Yet, U.S. racial policies have remained problematic even to this day. I can say the same for other countries. The so-called symbolism of this scene only reminded me of how human beings put so much faith in imagery and symbolism. And this strikes me as a FALSE FAITH. Why was taking up the mantle of a costumed hero that had been previously occupied by a white man, the only way for Sam Wilson to become relevant within the MCU franchise? What was wrong with him being "the Falcon"? Sam becoming the next Captain America was not going to save the U.S. in regard to race relations - not in real life and not in the fictional world of the MCU. Looking back on the series, the series' only scenario that seemed to expose racism in a realistic manner, proved to be Sam's failure to acquire a bank loan for his family's fishing boat in Louisiana.
~\Sharon Carter~* - I am certain many MCU fans are aware of this. One of Marvel Comics' most iconic couples happened to be Steve Rogers aka Captain America and Sharon Carter aka Agent 13. She also happened to be the great-niece of Peggy Carter, Steve's love interest during World War II. Portrayed by Emily VanCamp, Sharon was first introduced as a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent in "CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER" as a potential love interest for Steve. Despite Sharon's appearance in the following Captain America movie, "CIVIL WAR", their romance never really developed. Many blamed the lack of chemistry between VanCamp and Chris Evans. I never had a problem with their screen chemistry. I had a problem with the lack of relationship development between Sharon and Steve. And I blame Kevin Feige's decision to transform the third Captain America film into a third (and badly written) pseudo Avengers movie. The change in the film's narrative, along with Sharon's failure to appear in "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR" and "ENDGAME", left no opportunity for Sharon and Steve to become the romantic pair they had been in the comics. Instead, Sharon became a fugitive from the U.S. government after helping Steve and Sam hunt down Bucky, moved to Madripoor, a city-state with no U.S. extradition and became an embittered criminal known as "the Power Broker".
After "CIVIL WAR", nearly five years had passed before Sharon appeared in another MCU production - namely this series. And what happened? The franchise, with Spellman, ended up completely destroying her character by transforming her into the villain known as Power Broker, the criminal leader of an Indonesian city-state called Madripoor. After helping Steve and Sam acquire their suits and equipment in order to go after Bucky in "CIVIL WAR", Sharon lost her job with the C.I.A. and became a fugitive. She eventually moved to Madripoor, a city-state with no U.S. extradition, to evade capture, survived Thanos' Snap and became an embittered criminal nicknamed "the Power Broker" in order to survive the new world.
What really pissed me off about Sharon's arc between "CIVIL WAR" and "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER" is that her development into a major villain all happened OFF SCREEN. Off screen. Apparently, screenwriters for "INFINITY WAR" had written a draft that included Sharon in the movie. But according to Christopher Markus, he and Stephen McFeeley could not imagine scenes featuring Steve and Sharon trying to make it work in an apartment, because the 2018 movie did not have time to focus on their personal life. Why did Marvel simply fail to allow Sharon to be part of Steve's vigilante team - like Sam and Natasha Romanoff? I mean . . . good fucking grief! And why did Malcolm Spellman believe the only way Sharon could be interesting was to become a villain in "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER"? This was his idea of improving Sharon's character?
~\Helmut Zemo aka Baron Zemo~* - Why did Malcolm Spellman, Kevin Feige and the MCU thought it necessary to bring back Helmut Zemo, the Sokovian-born villain from "CIVIL WAR"? What role did he play in "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER"? I realize that Bucky, of all people, visited the incarcerated Zemo to acquire information on who had created the super-soldier serum that empowered the Flag Smashers. But why did he believe Zemo could provide the answer? Because he thought HYDRA was involved? Bucky or Sam could have searched for information from sources other than Zemo, who had been incarcerated for . . . what? Eight years? Eight years. Zemo managed to become something of a crowd-pleaser, thanks to Daniel Brühl's performance. Otherwise, I found his presence in this series unnecessary.
~\The Big Bad~* - Why on earth did it take this series so long to finally reveal the main villain's identity? At first, the series hinted the Flag Smashers, led by Karli Morgenthau. However, the series tossed other potential candidates for the Big Bad before viewers - John Walker, Helmut Zemo and yes, Sharon Carter. But in the end, Morgenthau and her group proved to be the main villains.
The Flag Smashers were a group of empowered people who believed the world was a better place between Thanos' Snap and the Blip (resurrection of those who had died during the Snap), when Humans around the world managed to unite and form a borderless society, one in which people helped others without any thought to nationalism and bias. Thanks to the Avengers, the world resumed its conflicts between nationalities and other groups. In other words, the borders returned.
Frankly, I have nothing against this ideal. Only Ms. Morgenthau and her followers resorted to violence and terrorism to achieve their goals. Does this sound familiar? It should. The Flag Smashers proved to be another example of characters with a progressive goal, resorting to extremism and becoming villains. This seemed to be a growing trend within the franchise, which I believe began with Erik "Killmonger" Stevens aka Prince N'Jadaka in 2018's "BLACK PANTHER". Since then, the MCU has not looked back at its growing roster of progressive villains. Perhaps I should not have been surprised. The franchise's ambiguous portrayal of an unconstitutional document like the Sokovia Accords, should have been the wake-up call. It seemed as if Kevin Feige, Marvel Films and Disney Studios had finally exposed themselves for the faux progressives they pretend to be. Frankly, this form of villainy has become tiresome to me.
After writing this article, I had considered ranking the six episodes featured in "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER" anyway. But I decided against it. My dislike of the series made it impossible for me to even bother. Being a fan of the first two Captain America movies, I had truly hoped this series would redeem the franchise. Unfortunately, it proved to be just as disappointing as "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR". Pity. Perhaps the fourth film, "CAPTAIN AMERICA: BRAVE NEW WORLD" will do the trick. I hope so.

This might be a slightly philosophical post. But the aim is to get to the bottom of what you should be truly doing. To truly get the most results.
There seems to be a MASSIVE amount of conflicting information online about how to do this.
“Do stuff that moves the needle forward”
“Do stuff that brings in revenue”
What does this truly mean though. And is it even the right thing. That’s the purpose of this post, to uncover.
When I’ve spent my time on actual needle-moving forward things, like taking business from 0 to revenue, doing all offer development, operations, sales process, marketing myself, it generally has taken me about 6 months to fully ‘try out’ a business idea I’ve had.
Most times it hasn’t worked.
Either it wasn’t profitable. Or there was a big problem somewhere.
I believe fundamentally it’s because I’m moving too slow.
Because it usually takes me around 6 months to ‘validate’ whether a business has good potential.
When you haven’t sold it or developed expertise in it yourself yet.
And I would say about 5% of the time it does work.
So if it takes 6 months and only 5% of the time it works (where you bring in revenue, no major issues), and each time it doesn’t work you try a new variation of it or something new based on what you learned, then it might take 10 years of trying different things to get the business to work.
Which sounds like it takes way too long.
So I thought about how the top companies move much quicker.
What separates them and my strategy.
And realized they simply had much more people on their team.
If you think about any successful organization who has achieved great things, and is world-leading, usually there is not 1 person on the team.
There seems to be a correlation between number of people on the team and speed of progress they can make in business.
Which goes against what most conventional startup wisdom tells you, most small business content creators etc all tell you to do it all yourself.
Which I’ve done for quite a few years and it’s gone so slowly in terms of overall progress.
If you should ‘do everything yourself’ then most Fortune 500 companies would’ve had single founders, and 1 person on their team. But the vast majority of successful Fortune 500 companies had co-founders.
And most successful businesses I know of, had co-founders.
And as they succeeded, they got more people on the team, and these people helped bring more success, then they brought more people.
Obviously there can be bad staff and not everyone contributes to the success of the company.
But I do believe, based on this, and observing top companies, that generally the more successful they are, the more people were involved with bringing about the success.
Which completely contradicts most information given to startups about ‘lone wolf’, ‘go it alone’. If that were true, Google would have 1 employee. Apple would have 1 employee.
And they would have never gotten off the ground.
Anyway, I may not have explained this perfectly but I do strongly believe the more & higher quality people are working together on something, the stats show these companies tend to do better, and successful companies you see often have more people than less working on them.
From the very beginning and now.
Regardless of the stage they were at.
So going based off this information, that the more people, the better, I have hired 30+ different people for different roles. Over the past few years. Across different businesses. To help speed up the progress in different areas.
From marketing roles, sales process roles, web development, app development, customer service, delivery of services.
And I would say there have been maybe 1 or 2 of them where I was actually happy with the result.
Most times, I would hire someone to do a job, and they didn’t do the job well, despite saying they were experienced.
And showing past examples of their work. And telling me everything I wanted to hear about how good they were.
It would often be that they would end up performing badly in the KPIs I set for them, giving many excuses, asking for help/questions/not solving anything on their own.
And just so many other problems. Like when there were multiple people at the same time on a team, working on the same project, they would blame each other and no one took responsibility despite clear responsibilities.
All telling me how other staff were bad and they were good, but getting conflicting info from all staff where they blame each other for everything so it’s difficult to know who to trust and who is being truthful.
Oftentimes not being reliable or doing what they were clearly asked to do.
Oftentimes trying to outsource the work I game them, to other people and not caring about the quality.
At my expense.
So I lost lots of clients, had low performing areas in the areas I hired for a lot of the time.
To be fair, things happened faster the more people there were.
But they often needed much more from me than they were contributing.
Like they always wanted to get paid more, for doing less work, weren’t reliable, did low quality work, didn’t hit KPIs, missed clear deadlines, always gave excuses, blamed others/external things, always asking how “I” wanted their job to be done, to the point where I was having to literally tell them every single thing to do and become an expert at their job myself, and show them how to do what they were put there to do, or do it myself, and still get a low quality result from them.
Anyway, the list goes on in all the problems I have experienced hiring people.
It really seems like a minefield.
But there were 1-2 people who did actually do well, who were responsive, who did what they committed to do, who hit deadlines, who did what they were asked, who didn’t give excuses. Who were actually honest hard workers who figured out how to solve problems and actually do the job that was asked from them.
Because of the amount of people I hired and the very low % of people who seemed to do their job well, it made me think that I am probably the problem here. If so many people are doing a bad job and not doing what they were actually hired to do. When most other companies seem to succeed at hiring people.
Then it must be a problem with myself and how I am hiring and managing them.
So it makes me think I need to level up in how I hire and manage people.
I’ve tried lots of different businesses and variations of them and some have done okay, some have not.
Mainly the most success I’ve had is in my own freelancing, where I don’t have other people on my team.
Because it’s kind of turned into a headache working with others. Who just seem to have mostly never been able to deliver what they promised without it becoming pointless to hire them in the first place with all the work I’m doing on their behalf and trying to pick up after all the problems and failures they’ve done.
So I’m not sure exactly what to spend my time and resources on.
I have money saved up from freelancing.
Where I can continue to hire people.
But I do feel I’ve had many many bad experiences.
And I believe it’s mostly my fault. Maybe my training, my hiring, my management, at places along the line I’ve not done it well enough.
I’ve tried to make improvements each time but it has kind of seemed like luck to get people who do actually do their job well.
I genuinely want to hire people and succeed in this.
Because if I can successfully work with people to achieve outcomes, rather than relying only on myself, I can build a real business and not just do freelancing.
In freelancing, I was able to make $3k-5k/month but it was very stressful and I hated speaking with clients, and was constantly stressed.
I generally really don’t like socialising with people. Including clients and staff.
And staff often try to get me to socialise unnecessarily so they can avoid doing their job, and pull me away from mine.
So trying to make it work.
I want to make it work with hiring people because if I can do this, I can make 10x-100x-1000x faster progress with other people on the same team.
But I do have a very bad track record so far. So it’s kind of painful returning to it and continuing to have bad experiences.
But at the same time I know it’s me who’s probably at fault because there can’t be this many bad people I’ve hired and it surely can’t be this bad for everyone.
I think the reason is that I’ve been better at managing myself and doing things successfully solo throughout my life.
Like I’ve achieved very good things in solo sports, in academia, and in many areas that don’t require a team, but often become frustrated working in a team.
But I don’t want my business success to be limited to 1 person.
So I truly want to make it work in improving my ability to manage (ideally a large amount of) people in a way where they can actually deliver and it work well.
Because I was capped in freelancing to making $3k-5k/month because I couldn’t take on more clients because I was undercharging and overdelivering and couldn’t handle more due to being massively stressed out and hating it. I was able to work with less clients at times and charge higher, but they never wanted me to ‘outsource’ my work to others or bring on a team, and I felt bad about it because had bad experiences where I had felt like I let clients down, and oftentimes they told me they had hired me because of me, and not wanted me to ‘outsource’ the work.
But I want to make it work.
Building a real business with a team. Not just doing freelancing and relying just on myself.
So I have time and money and resources to put into this.
I have 1 staff member currently who is unproductive. But we have an equity deal so it doesn’t cost me money for them to perform. But costs me lots of time and their performance is extremely weak. Don’t even want to go into detail, but it’s a nightmare. Their performance is about 1/10 but I believe I can raise their performance if I improve my ability to raise their performance.
Anyway. I want to build a team, but not sure exactly what activities are best ways to spend my time.
If I am physically making improvements, I feel I am slowing down the business progress.
Whereas I want to hire and manage people.
I’ve built training so that this co-founder is able to hire people. And these people can use the same training to hire people.
But I don’t currently have training to enable them to manage people.
My fear is that without training, people just ask unlimited questions on how to do something in their role and it becomes pointless to have hired them because I have to do everything they should have done to do it, so they basically just become a robot following very specific instructions. Rather than a human being who can achieve things independently.
So for example, if I made this training, it would take up all my time, whereas I have savings I’ve accumulated from freelancing which I can put into either having the co-founder manage staff, or have the co-founder make management training at the same time to enable more and more staff to hire and manage new staff. To achieve overall objectives and KPIs.
Or I could have the co-founder hire someone to make the training.
Then that frees up my time, my co-founders, time and only takes financial resources to accomplish.
What I want to achieve, is a scenario where I can give staff KPIs and objectives, and they are enabled to hire and manage people who can meet these objectives. Independently without my help required.
They give feedback, and I have a system for feedback to internal improvements can be made based on staff feedback.
Without it being unfiltered, it’s structured and organised so people can’t just get unlimited help/training/whatever from me.
Where they should be able to take actions, iterate, learn, improve, and act as independent thinking people who can achieve objectives themselves. Or within a system where it’s not all tied directly to me.
E.g. I have direct reports going to me.
But they have direct reports who go to them.
Previously I had a system where I did this, but then staff at the bottom of the hierarchy would ask their managers questions, and the managers wouldn’t know the answer so would then ask me the questions, and so jumping over the managers and making me deal with everything.
Whereas I want to build a system where people can make business progress in their specific area, independently without everything going to the CEO. Only important/urgent things are feedbacked to the CEO.
This way I believe much faster progress can happen.
Because I won’t be bogged down by exponentially growing problems.
Like with how it works in any successful organisation.
Tim Cook has only a handful of direct reports. Who each only have a handful of direct reports. And so on.
He’s making the most important decisions, dealing with what’s most important and strategic, with top authority, dealing with everything as a birds eye view, but not doing every employee’s job for them, teaching every employee how to do their job. Picking up the pieces after every employee misses their deadlines, doesn’t do their work, gives excuses, does poor work that doesn’t help the company.
Even in any successful organisation. Each unit/person is making their own decisions, taking their own action, learning from it, practicing themself at improving, gaining their own experience, not all relying on 1 person, every single person in the organisation, just for them to do their job.
In successful organisations, people at every level experience new problems all the time, and don’t need to contact the #1 person at the top just to deal with it.
They come up with a solution and go for it. And iterate. Learn, try to do something better next time. And there’s a constant learning/feedback process going on across the organisation which everyone takes part in, not just 1 person doing every part for everyone.
I believe this structure of modelling what actually successful organisations do is the correct way. Because they’re successful for a reason.
Not this ‘hustle grindset’ BS in the startup/business world where lots of information seems to be saying the wrong thing. It just makes no sense to make every single person 100% reliant on you for them to do their job.
Anyway so I’m thinking about what I should do with my time.
What I want to do, is tell my co-founder what to do, which involves hiring and managing people who do things that move the needle forward in the business, as defined by me, and some of those people also hire and manage people. To have an exponentially growing system of people growing the organisation. And a communication and feedback and learning system and autonomy within the system itself so it can take action, learn, grow, thrive. As a system within itself.
I believe if hypothetically, I did everything myself, then it takes about 6 months to ‘validate’ whether a business has good potential, and 5% of the time it does. So if I do everything myself, I believe it will take me 10 years to get a business off the ground.
But if I utilise my money and time more efficiently, I can have as many people working on each part involved in validating these businesses as possible.
I don’t know if that is lazy or smart.
I believe it’s both. But mostly smart. Because I believe I can convince, hire, organise, manage people to either work on equity deals or pay in a way where businesses can realistically bring in profit.
My co-founder does very little of what I ask him to do.
And he wants me to be doing individual things.
He objectively is financially and intelligently very poor and has very minimal skills or experience.
Not to be offensive. Just to paint a picture. So since there is conflicting information everywhere in the business world and you need to choose who to trust, I don’t trust what he believes.
Objectively I am much richer in all these areas than him.
So I used to operate on a democratic system with them. But it’s kind of like, in a vote for president, if you have 80% of the population being easily controlled by the media and being very dumb and easy to sway and manipulate into believing anything, and they vote for things which are objectively dumb and go against what the smartest and objectively most valuable people vote for, I don’t want to be held back by a dumb population having authority or being listened to, if they have a clear, long track record of making very bad decisions.
If you were to take business advice from a homeless person with no experience, money or intellect, or a Fortune 500 CEO, who let’s say objectively has massive experience, money, intellect and success. Then I would probably take what the CEO has to say.
If you had to listen to what a scientist vs 12 year old had to say about a scientific topic, you’d probably want to listen to the scientist who studied the topic and is well respected in their field.
So I believe it would be dumb for both of us, if he made decisions, objectively.
But at the same time it’s difficult to truly know what the truth is.
The Fortune 500 CEO could be telling you what you want to hear, and could have an incentive to lie to you to send you in the wrong direction with bad business advice so you don’t become competition to them, and the homeless person could be honest.
The scientist could be trying to gain fame and get attention to themself to build their career on a lie and fake experiments whereas the 12 year old could be a science savant.
So it’s difficult to truly know what the truth is.
If I should listen to him or myself.
Objectively.

1. I believe if I spend time building the business via this logic I’ve described above, it can grow much faster, with unlimited people working on it and performing well, if the necessary improvements are made.
   
2. And I believe if I were to do the individual things necessary to do it, it would take 6 months to ‘validate’ each’s potential. I.e. try everything in that timeframe to make it work, build a good service/product, build good sales process, build good marketing, deal with customers, etc, all on your own.
   

Whereas in the first option, other people could do all these things.
Human development over history has happened due to the input of millions, if not billions of people.
There wasn’t 1 person who did all the work to get Carnegie or Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg to gain the success they’ve achieved.
They all build an empire off the backs of others.
Did the slave owners do the slave work themselves when they brought slaves to America? No.
Does Elon do all the individual parts necessary to grow the company? No. He leads and controls the people in order to do that.
Does Mark Zuckerberg single handedly get Facebook off the ground? No. There were 10+ people involved. He stole code from others. Who sued him.
All of these people had exponentially growing staff as the company grew, as fuel to grow the company.
So if you have the money and strategy to lead them to success, I believe it surely is possible.
So long story short this is a long rambling piece of writing but I believe there’s very little impact 1 individual person has on the success of a company. Controlling and amassing an army of people who build the company up and contribute to the company sounds more true.
Does 1 person do everything involved in every sports team? No. Each player plays their respective part. Directed by the coach/manager.
Does 1 person do everything involved in musical orchestras? No each musician plays their part. Directed by the conductor.
And so on.
If you can build an exponentially growing team of staff who effectively work together, bring others on, take action to grow the business, learn from mistakes, make improvements, are highly motivated, are led successfully, it can achieve great things. I feel like it’s a delusion that individual people single-handedly grow companies without others.
So what should that person spend their time doing?
Doing all the millions of things necessary to grow the company? Or bring and manage others who some make progress themselves, some bring and manage others, to gain more and more resources to make progress at faster and faster rate.
Do successful people really have only 1 person responsible? No. They have teams of people behind them.
So trying to do the work of 1,000 people as 1 person sounds 1,000x as hard as getting 1,000 people to each do the work of 1 person.
So if you can finance the growth of the company via hiring others.
Let’s assume I can finance this exponential staff growth. Then surely I should do it right?
Like if I were to compete with 1 person trying to grow their business, and I had 1,000+ people, all doing their jobs effectively, being organised, working as a system not all relying on me, the competition where it’s 1 staff member on average would get beaten.
And surely any excuse you could give, I could just hire someone to solve that excuse.
Like “oh but what roles do you hire these people to do?” well I could hire someone whose role is to figure out what roles they should do. “But what if x?” well I could hire someone whose role is to solve that too. And so on. “Oh but do you have enough money to pay these staff?” Yes. And I can hire people whose job is to bring in money. Whether it’s fundraising, raising from
Did Hitler fight WW2 with 1 person? No. He fought it with millions, if not hundreds of millions of people.
Did Amazon/[insert any Fortune 500 company] get to their size today from having 1 staff member who did everything? No. They had thousands if not hundreds of thousands of staff.
Did any successful mom and pop shop/small business get to their size today from 1 staff member? No. They are one of the largest employers in the USA. Which means they hire a lot of people. Successful mom & pop shops generally have more staff the more successful they are.
Armies generally have more success the bigger and more effective they are.
Companies generally have more success the more staff and more effective the staff are.
So surely we shouldn’t hold ourselves back, to use the example of war, it’s like trying to go to war with others who have hundreds of thousands of people in their army, with just 1 person, yourself. Who is going to win? Them.
How are you going to compete with companies with way more staff, and way more effective staff than you? You would have to become exponentially more effective as 1 person which I just don’t know if it’s realistic.
I think it’s more delusional to believe that 1 person can do as well as 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 or more people who are each as effective as that 1 person.
So if you were to win, you would probably want to expand your army/staff and make them more effective, rather than try to make yourself somehow perform on the same level as armies/companies with thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. It’s just delusional to believe you can beat them in my opinion.
In business, you’d have to be extremely skilled at hundreds of different skills, spend 10+ hours on 100+ individual areas of the business each week to compete with 1,000+ staff who, if performing effectively, would crush you.
This is just my thoughts.
Am I being delusional? Come on…
I just feel like this is the way. Just look at the most successful organisations in history. Was it 1 person?
No, 1 person cannot realistically win a war against 100,000+ people. No matter how good they are. They would need to be top 0.00000000001% in skill in the world at what they’re beating the other side at.
Could 1 footballer beat a football team of 100 people of equal ability than them? No.
Could a company of 1 person outperform a company of 1,000 people? No.
So I believe if I can solve the ability to do this, I can grow a team of unlimited size to conquer and beat any problem thrown at us.
It’s just down to control of people.
Money doesn’t exist.
Even biggest most successful companies in the world mostly didn’t get there on their own.
I believe less than 1% of Fortune 500 Companies were bootstrapped. Or something similar.
And this is what I’m saying.
People in the small business/entrepreneur world tell you you need to have everything yourself.
How are you going to outfinance, outcompete companies on complete other levels without acquiring these resources from others? Just relying on yourself.
How could 1 person get more financing/investment in a company from investors compared to 1,000 of equal ability.
It’s never 1 person ‘beating the world’. Or beating the industry on their own.
Maybe if your aspiration is to be an average business.
“Oh but you should do what is best at each level, and it’s different for each level. Start just by yourself until you get X revenue. THEN hire people”
…..Well if you struggle to get X revenue on your own, how are you ever going to hire others?
The others help you grow the revenue in the first place.
I feel like the small business world is too overreliant on the founder and delusional about the capabilities of 1 person when competing against units 100-1,000x + bigger than them.
Come on.
Anything you want to compete in. In business.
Generally you already have competition.
And if you manage to somehow “spot” something they’ve “missed”, they could just copy you and wipe you out with their massive resources anyway.
In my opinion you need to expand your resources as FAST as possible.
Not this BS “oh wait until you get X profit on your own to hire other people”
Well if you’ve only made good profit on your own as a freelancer, and you’ve spent a lot of years trying to get a business off the ground solo, what are you meant to do?
“Oh just make it work” Great advice.
I just feel like there’s too much delusion into what it actually takes.
In a job or as a freelancer. It’s easier to make $3k-5k/month revenue because you’re only competing against individuals.
But when you try to compete against other businesses to make $3k-5k/month profit, you’re competing against businesses with 10x-100x the people, the money, the resources, the everything, to beat you.
So how are you meant to realistically beat them on your own? Without expanding your resources as quick as possible.
So because of this I believe if 1 person on their own is somehow meant to take a business from $0 to $10k/mo profit, then surely it will happen quicker if more people, of equal ability, are trying to make the business $0 to 10k/mo profit.
To be honest I don’t know what the truth is. This is just what I believe the truth is.
Because I’ve consumed so much wrong information from people acting like they have the correct advice in business.
All Youtube videos, articles, courses, claiming to make you successful in business, when in reality it’s just advice that sounds either easy to say or easy to hear.
Like it’s easy to say as a comment to this post, a response that takes 5 seconds to write, like the first thing that comes to your mind, like “just figure it out on your own”. But that’s not necessarily the truth, it’s just easy for you to say as a commenter. Comments aren’t necessarily the truth.
And on the other side business advice is easy to hear. Like “work on your own, make $1m/month, move to X country, live the life, working 2hours/day” which is just pure delusion. And most of the time the content/advice’s purpose is to benefit the business who made it, not the receiver of the advice. Because it’s selling a course or they have ad sense so they just want maximum engagement and views.
And anyone who is successful in business doesn’t need to give any advice. Because they’re applying the advice. Not giving it. Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos etc have no strong incentive trying to help others get to their level because they could just make an extra $10M-100M from spending the same time/energy/resources giving advice into growing their business.
They’re never gonna have advice that would help you beat them because otherwise they would’ve applied it themself.
And they are actually incentivized to not want others to truly succeed. Because it means more competition for them and less success for them.
So 99%+ of info online just seems like it’s not true.
I’m trying to figure out what is true and what isn’t.
Honestly though it’s difficult to even trust what anyone says in business. Any advice or feedback. For the reasons given.
Because 99% of feedback is either from people who haven’t truly grown a successful business, or it’s not related to you, or it involved luck, or it’s just like a motivational quote they tell you, or it’s a snarky comment they tell you.
It’s only helpful to them. And you are actually their customer or viewer or their entertainment. Not a successful business yourself. Because it’s just all misinformation that all contradicts with the truth.
So not even sure if it’s worth trying to get advice or if it’s all just pointless, just to figure it out myself from experience, trial and error and learning from my own thinking than relying on any other thinking.
Anyway do you think this is just crazy and I’m going crazy or is there any truth to what I’m saying?
Let me know your brutal honest feedback

I am concerned about the geopolitical situation and tension, thats is right now concentrated in Ukraine. Will it develop into a world wide conflict between East and West? Are you guys also afraid, or is it just me?

This might be a slightly philosophical post. But the aim is to get to the bottom of what you should be truly doing. To truly get the most results.
There seems to be a MASSIVE amount of conflicting information online about how to do this.
“Do stuff that moves the needle forward”
“Do stuff that brings in revenue”
What does this truly mean though. And is it even the right thing. That’s the purpose of this post, to uncover.
When I’ve spent my time on actual needle-moving forward things, like taking business from 0 to revenue, doing all offer development, operations, sales process, marketing myself, it generally has taken me about 6 months to fully ‘try out’ a business idea I’ve had.
Most times it hasn’t worked.
Either it wasn’t profitable. Or there was a big problem somewhere.
I believe fundamentally it’s because I’m moving too slow.
Because it usually takes me around 6 months to ‘validate’ whether a business has good potential.
When you haven’t sold it or developed expertise in it yourself yet.
And I would say about 5% of the time it does work.
So if it takes 6 months and only 5% of the time it works (where you bring in revenue, no major issues), and each time it doesn’t work you try a new variation of it or something new based on what you learned, then it might take 10 years of trying different things to get the business to work.
Which sounds like it takes way too long.
So I thought about how the top companies move much quicker.
What separates them and my strategy.
And realized they simply had much more people on their team.
If you think about any successful organization who has achieved great things, and is world-leading, usually there is not 1 person on the team.
There seems to be a correlation between number of people on the team and speed of progress they can make in business.
Which goes against what most conventional startup wisdom tells you, most small business content creators etc all tell you to do it all yourself.
Which I’ve done for quite a few years and it’s gone so slowly in terms of overall progress.
If you should ‘do everything yourself’ then most Fortune 500 companies would’ve had single founders, and 1 person on their team. But the vast majority of successful Fortune 500 companies had co-founders.
And most successful businesses I know of, had co-founders.
And as they succeeded, they got more people on the team, and these people helped bring more success, then they brought more people.
Obviously there can be bad staff and not everyone contributes to the success of the company.
But I do believe, based on this, and observing top companies, that generally the more successful they are, the more people were involved with bringing about the success.
Which completely contradicts most information given to startups about ‘lone wolf’, ‘go it alone’. If that were true, Google would have 1 employee. Apple would have 1 employee.
And they would have never gotten off the ground.
Anyway, I may not have explained this perfectly but I do strongly believe the more & higher quality people are working together on something, the stats show these companies tend to do better, and successful companies you see often have more people than less working on them.
From the very beginning and now.
Regardless of the stage they were at.
So going based off this information, that the more people, the better, I have hired 30+ different people for different roles. Over the past few years. Across different businesses. To help speed up the progress in different areas.
From marketing roles, sales process roles, web development, app development, customer service, delivery of services.
And I would say there have been maybe 1 or 2 of them where I was actually happy with the result.
Most times, I would hire someone to do a job, and they didn’t do the job well, despite saying they were experienced.
And showing past examples of their work. And telling me everything I wanted to hear about how good they were.
It would often be that they would end up performing badly in the KPIs I set for them, giving many excuses, asking for help/questions/not solving anything on their own.
And just so many other problems. Like when there were multiple people at the same time on a team, working on the same project, they would blame each other and no one took responsibility despite clear responsibilities.
All telling me how other staff were bad and they were good, but getting conflicting info from all staff where they blame each other for everything so it’s difficult to know who to trust and who is being truthful.
Oftentimes not being reliable or doing what they were clearly asked to do.
Oftentimes trying to outsource the work I game them, to other people and not caring about the quality.
At my expense.
So I lost lots of clients, had low performing areas in the areas I hired for a lot of the time.
To be fair, things happened faster the more people there were.
But they often needed much more from me than they were contributing.
Like they always wanted to get paid more, for doing less work, weren’t reliable, did low quality work, didn’t hit KPIs, missed clear deadlines, always gave excuses, blamed others/external things, always asking how “I” wanted their job to be done, to the point where I was having to literally tell them every single thing to do and become an expert at their job myself, and show them how to do what they were put there to do, or do it myself, and still get a low quality result from them.
Anyway, the list goes on in all the problems I have experienced hiring people.
It really seems like a minefield.
But there were 1-2 people who did actually do well, who were responsive, who did what they committed to do, who hit deadlines, who did what they were asked, who didn’t give excuses. Who were actually honest hard workers who figured out how to solve problems and actually do the job that was asked from them.
Because of the amount of people I hired and the very low % of people who seemed to do their job well, it made me think that I am probably the problem here. If so many people are doing a bad job and not doing what they were actually hired to do. When most other companies seem to succeed at hiring people.
Then it must be a problem with myself and how I am hiring and managing them.
So it makes me think I need to level up in how I hire and manage people.
I’ve tried lots of different businesses and variations of them and some have done okay, some have not.
Mainly the most success I’ve had is in my own freelancing, where I don’t have other people on my team.
Because it’s kind of turned into a headache working with others. Who just seem to have mostly never been able to deliver what they promised without it becoming pointless to hire them in the first place with all the work I’m doing on their behalf and trying to pick up after all the problems and failures they’ve done.
So I’m not sure exactly what to spend my time and resources on.
I have money saved up from freelancing.
Where I can continue to hire people.
But I do feel I’ve had many many bad experiences.
And I believe it’s mostly my fault. Maybe my training, my hiring, my management, at places along the line I’ve not done it well enough.
I’ve tried to make improvements each time but it has kind of seemed like luck to get people who do actually do their job well.
I genuinely want to hire people and succeed in this.
Because if I can successfully work with people to achieve outcomes, rather than relying only on myself, I can build a real business and not just do freelancing.
In freelancing, I was able to make $3k-5k/month but it was very stressful and I hated speaking with clients, and was constantly stressed.
I generally really don’t like socialising with people. Including clients and staff.
And staff often try to get me to socialise unnecessarily so they can avoid doing their job, and pull me away from mine.
So trying to make it work.
I want to make it work with hiring people because if I can do this, I can make 10x-100x-1000x faster progress with other people on the same team.
But I do have a very bad track record so far. So it’s kind of painful returning to it and continuing to have bad experiences.
But at the same time I know it’s me who’s probably at fault because there can’t be this many bad people I’ve hired and it surely can’t be this bad for everyone.
I think the reason is that I’ve been better at managing myself and doing things successfully solo throughout my life.
Like I’ve achieved very good things in solo sports, in academia, and in many areas that don’t require a team, but often become frustrated working in a team.
But I don’t want my business success to be limited to 1 person.
So I truly want to make it work in improving my ability to manage (ideally a large amount of) people in a way where they can actually deliver and it work well.
Because I was capped in freelancing to making $3k-5k/month because I couldn’t take on more clients because I was undercharging and overdelivering and couldn’t handle more due to being massively stressed out and hating it. I was able to work with less clients at times and charge higher, but they never wanted me to ‘outsource’ my work to others or bring on a team, and I felt bad about it because had bad experiences where I had felt like I let clients down, and oftentimes they told me they had hired me because of me, and not wanted me to ‘outsource’ the work.
But I want to make it work.
Building a real business with a team. Not just doing freelancing and relying just on myself.
So I have time and money and resources to put into this.
I have 1 staff member currently who is unproductive. But we have an equity deal so it doesn’t cost me money for them to perform. But costs me lots of time and their performance is extremely weak. Don’t even want to go into detail, but it’s a nightmare. Their performance is about 1/10 but I believe I can raise their performance if I improve my ability to raise their performance.
Anyway. I want to build a team, but not sure exactly what activities are best ways to spend my time.
If I am physically making improvements, I feel I am slowing down the business progress.
Whereas I want to hire and manage people.
I’ve built training so that this co-founder is able to hire people. And these people can use the same training to hire people.
But I don’t currently have training to enable them to manage people.
My fear is that without training, people just ask unlimited questions on how to do something in their role and it becomes pointless to have hired them because I have to do everything they should have done to do it, so they basically just become a robot following very specific instructions. Rather than a human being who can achieve things independently.
So for example, if I made this training, it would take up all my time, whereas I have savings I’ve accumulated from freelancing which I can put into either having the co-founder manage staff, or have the co-founder make management training at the same time to enable more and more staff to hire and manage new staff. To achieve overall objectives and KPIs.
Or I could have the co-founder hire someone to make the training.
Then that frees up my time, my co-founders, time and only takes financial resources to accomplish.
What I want to achieve, is a scenario where I can give staff KPIs and objectives, and they are enabled to hire and manage people who can meet these objectives. Independently without my help required.
They give feedback, and I have a system for feedback to internal improvements can be made based on staff feedback.
Without it being unfiltered, it’s structured and organised so people can’t just get unlimited help/training/whatever from me.
Where they should be able to take actions, iterate, learn, improve, and act as independent thinking people who can achieve objectives themselves. Or within a system where it’s not all tied directly to me.
E.g. I have direct reports going to me.
But they have direct reports who go to them.
Previously I had a system where I did this, but then staff at the bottom of the hierarchy would ask their managers questions, and the managers wouldn’t know the answer so would then ask me the questions, and so jumping over the managers and making me deal with everything.
Whereas I want to build a system where people can make business progress in their specific area, independently without everything going to the CEO. Only important/urgent things are feedbacked to the CEO.
This way I believe much faster progress can happen.
Because I won’t be bogged down by exponentially growing problems.
Like with how it works in any successful organisation.
Tim Cook has only a handful of direct reports. Who each only have a handful of direct reports. And so on.
He’s making the most important decisions, dealing with what’s most important and strategic, with top authority, dealing with everything as a birds eye view, but not doing every employee’s job for them, teaching every employee how to do their job. Picking up the pieces after every employee misses their deadlines, doesn’t do their work, gives excuses, does poor work that doesn’t help the company.
Even in any successful organisation. Each unit/person is making their own decisions, taking their own action, learning from it, practicing themself at improving, gaining their own experience, not all relying on 1 person, every single person in the organisation, just for them to do their job.
In successful organisations, people at every level experience new problems all the time, and don’t need to contact the #1 person at the top just to deal with it.
They come up with a solution and go for it. And iterate. Learn, try to do something better next time. And there’s a constant learning/feedback process going on across the organisation which everyone takes part in, not just 1 person doing every part for everyone.
I believe this structure of modelling what actually successful organisations do is the correct way. Because they’re successful for a reason.
Not this ‘hustle grindset’ BS in the startup/business world where lots of information seems to be saying the wrong thing. It just makes no sense to make every single person 100% reliant on you for them to do their job.
Anyway so I’m thinking about what I should do with my time.
What I want to do, is tell my co-founder what to do, which involves hiring and managing people who do things that move the needle forward in the business, as defined by me, and some of those people also hire and manage people. To have an exponentially growing system of people growing the organisation. And a communication and feedback and learning system and autonomy within the system itself so it can take action, learn, grow, thrive. As a system within itself.
I believe if hypothetically, I did everything myself, then it takes about 6 months to ‘validate’ whether a business has good potential, and 5% of the time it does. So if I do everything myself, I believe it will take me 10 years to get a business off the ground.
But if I utilise my money and time more efficiently, I can have as many people working on each part involved in validating these businesses as possible.
I don’t know if that is lazy or smart.
I believe it’s both. But mostly smart. Because I believe I can convince, hire, organise, manage people to either work on equity deals or pay in a way where businesses can realistically bring in profit.
My co-founder does very little of what I ask him to do.
And he wants me to be doing individual things.
He objectively is financially and intelligently very poor and has very minimal skills or experience.
Not to be offensive. Just to paint a picture. So since there is conflicting information everywhere in the business world and you need to choose who to trust, I don’t trust what he believes.
Objectively I am much richer in all these areas than him.
So I used to operate on a democratic system with them. But it’s kind of like, in a vote for president, if you have 80% of the population being easily controlled by the media and being very dumb and easy to sway and manipulate into believing anything, and they vote for things which are objectively dumb and go against what the smartest and objectively most valuable people vote for, I don’t want to be held back by a dumb population having authority or being listened to, if they have a clear, long track record of making very bad decisions.
If you were to take business advice from a homeless person with no experience, money or intellect, or a Fortune 500 CEO, who let’s say objectively has massive experience, money, intellect and success. Then I would probably take what the CEO has to say.
If you had to listen to what a scientist vs 12 year old had to say about a scientific topic, you’d probably want to listen to the scientist who studied the topic and is well respected in their field.
So I believe it would be dumb for both of us, if he made decisions, objectively.
But at the same time it’s difficult to truly know what the truth is.
The Fortune 500 CEO could be telling you what you want to hear, and could have an incentive to lie to you to send you in the wrong direction with bad business advice so you don’t become competition to them, and the homeless person could be honest.
The scientist could be trying to gain fame and get attention to themself to build their career on a lie and fake experiments whereas the 12 year old could be a science savant.
So it’s difficult to truly know what the truth is.
If I should listen to him or myself.
Objectively.

1. I believe if I spend time building the business via this logic I’ve described above, it can grow much faster, with unlimited people working on it and performing well, if the necessary improvements are made.
   
2. And I believe if I were to do the individual things necessary to do it, it would take 6 months to ‘validate’ each’s potential. I.e. try everything in that timeframe to make it work, build a good service/product, build good sales process, build good marketing, deal with customers, etc, all on your own.
   

Whereas in the first option, other people could do all these things.
Human development over history has happened due to the input of millions, if not billions of people.
There wasn’t 1 person who did all the work to get Carnegie or Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg to gain the success they’ve achieved.
They all build an empire off the backs of others.
Did the slave owners do the slave work themselves when they brought slaves to America? No.
Does Elon do all the individual parts necessary to grow the company? No. He leads and controls the people in order to do that.
Does Mark Zuckerberg single handedly get Facebook off the ground? No. There were 10+ people involved. He stole code from others. Who sued him.
All of these people had exponentially growing staff as the company grew, as fuel to grow the company.
So if you have the money and strategy to lead them to success, I believe it surely is possible.
So long story short this is a long rambling piece of writing but I believe there’s very little impact 1 individual person has on the success of a company. Controlling and amassing an army of people who build the company up and contribute to the company sounds more true.
Does 1 person do everything involved in every sports team? No. Each player plays their respective part. Directed by the coach/manager.
Does 1 person do everything involved in musical orchestras? No each musician plays their part. Directed by the conductor.
And so on.
If you can build an exponentially growing team of staff who effectively work together, bring others on, take action to grow the business, learn from mistakes, make improvements, are highly motivated, are led successfully, it can achieve great things. I feel like it’s a delusion that individual people single-handedly grow companies without others.
So what should that person spend their time doing?
Doing all the millions of things necessary to grow the company? Or bring and manage others who some make progress themselves, some bring and manage others, to gain more and more resources to make progress at faster and faster rate.
Do successful people really have only 1 person responsible? No. They have teams of people behind them.
So trying to do the work of 1,000 people as 1 person sounds 1,000x as hard as getting 1,000 people to each do the work of 1 person.
So if you can finance the growth of the company via hiring others.
Let’s assume I can finance this exponential staff growth. Then surely I should do it right?
Like if I were to compete with 1 person trying to grow their business, and I had 1,000+ people, all doing their jobs effectively, being organised, working as a system not all relying on me, the competition where it’s 1 staff member on average would get beaten.
And surely any excuse you could give, I could just hire someone to solve that excuse.
Like “oh but what roles do you hire these people to do?” well I could hire someone whose role is to figure out what roles they should do. “But what if x?” well I could hire someone whose role is to solve that too. And so on. “Oh but do you have enough money to pay these staff?” Yes. And I can hire people whose job is to bring in money. Whether it’s fundraising, raising from
Did Hitler fight WW2 with 1 person? No. He fought it with millions, if not hundreds of millions of people.
Did Amazon/[insert any Fortune 500 company] get to their size today from having 1 staff member who did everything? No. They had thousands if not hundreds of thousands of staff.
Did any successful mom and pop shop/small business get to their size today from 1 staff member? No. They are one of the largest employers in the USA. Which means they hire a lot of people. Successful mom & pop shops generally have more staff the more successful they are.
Armies generally have more success the bigger and more effective they are.
Companies generally have more success the more staff and more effective the staff are.
So surely we shouldn’t hold ourselves back, to use the example of war, it’s like trying to go to war with others who have hundreds of thousands of people in their army, with just 1 person, yourself. Who is going to win? Them.
How are you going to compete with companies with way more staff, and way more effective staff than you? You would have to become exponentially more effective as 1 person which I just don’t know if it’s realistic.
I think it’s more delusional to believe that 1 person can do as well as 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 or more people who are each as effective as that 1 person.
So if you were to win, you would probably want to expand your army/staff and make them more effective, rather than try to make yourself somehow perform on the same level as armies/companies with thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. It’s just delusional to believe you can beat them in my opinion.
In business, you’d have to be extremely skilled at hundreds of different skills, spend 10+ hours on 100+ individual areas of the business each week to compete with 1,000+ staff who, if performing effectively, would crush you.
This is just my thoughts.
Am I being delusional? Come on…
I just feel like this is the way. Just look at the most successful organisations in history. Was it 1 person?
No, 1 person cannot realistically win a war against 100,000+ people. No matter how good they are. They would need to be top 0.00000000001% in skill in the world at what they’re beating the other side at.
Could 1 footballer beat a football team of 100 people of equal ability than them? No.
Could a company of 1 person outperform a company of 1,000 people? No.
So I believe if I can solve the ability to do this, I can grow a team of unlimited size to conquer and beat any problem thrown at us.
It’s just down to control of people.
Money doesn’t exist.
Even biggest most successful companies in the world mostly didn’t get there on their own.
I believe less than 1% of Fortune 500 Companies were bootstrapped. Or something similar.
And this is what I’m saying.
People in the small business/entrepreneur world tell you you need to have everything yourself.
How are you going to outfinance, outcompete companies on complete other levels without acquiring these resources from others? Just relying on yourself.
How could 1 person get more financing/investment in a company from investors compared to 1,000 of equal ability.
It’s never 1 person ‘beating the world’. Or beating the industry on their own.
Maybe if your aspiration is to be an average business.
“Oh but you should do what is best at each level, and it’s different for each level. Start just by yourself until you get X revenue. THEN hire people”
…..Well if you struggle to get X revenue on your own, how are you ever going to hire others?
The others help you grow the revenue in the first place.
I feel like the small business world is too overreliant on the founder and delusional about the capabilities of 1 person when competing against units 100-1,000x + bigger than them.
Come on.
Anything you want to compete in. In business.
Generally you already have competition.
And if you manage to somehow “spot” something they’ve “missed”, they could just copy you and wipe you out with their massive resources anyway.
In my opinion you need to expand your resources as FAST as possible.
Not this BS “oh wait until you get X profit on your own to hire other people”
Well if you’ve only made good profit on your own as a freelancer, and you’ve spent a lot of years trying to get a business off the ground solo, what are you meant to do?
“Oh just make it work” Great advice.
I just feel like there’s too much delusion into what it actually takes.
In a job or as a freelancer. It’s easier to make $3k-5k/month revenue because you’re only competing against individuals.
But when you try to compete against other businesses to make $3k-5k/month profit, you’re competing against businesses with 10x-100x the people, the money, the resources, the everything, to beat you.
So how are you meant to realistically beat them on your own? Without expanding your resources as quick as possible.
So because of this I believe if 1 person on their own is somehow meant to take a business from $0 to $10k/mo profit, then surely it will happen quicker if more people, of equal ability, are trying to make the business $0 to 10k/mo profit.
To be honest I don’t know what the truth is. This is just what I believe the truth is.
Because I’ve consumed so much wrong information from people acting like they have the correct advice in business.
All Youtube videos, articles, courses, claiming to make you successful in business, when in reality it’s just advice that sounds either easy to say or easy to hear.
Like it’s easy to say as a comment to this post, a response that takes 5 seconds to write, like the first thing that comes to your mind, like “just figure it out on your own”. But that’s not necessarily the truth, it’s just easy for you to say as a commenter. Comments aren’t necessarily the truth.
And on the other side business advice is easy to hear. Like “work on your own, make $1m/month, move to X country, live the life, working 2hours/day” which is just pure delusion. And most of the time the content/advice’s purpose is to benefit the business who made it, not the receiver of the advice. Because it’s selling a course or they have ad sense so they just want maximum engagement and views.
And anyone who is successful in business doesn’t need to give any advice. Because they’re applying the advice. Not giving it. Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos etc have no strong incentive trying to help others get to their level because they could just make an extra $10M-100M from spending the same time/energy/resources giving advice into growing their business.
They’re never gonna have advice that would help you beat them because otherwise they would’ve applied it themself.
And they are actually incentivized to not want others to truly succeed. Because it means more competition for them and less success for them.
So 99%+ of info online just seems like it’s not true.
I’m trying to figure out what is true and what isn’t.
Honestly though it’s difficult to even trust what anyone says in business. Any advice or feedback. For the reasons given.
Because 99% of feedback is either from people who haven’t truly grown a successful business, or it’s not related to you, or it involved luck, or it’s just like a motivational quote they tell you, or it’s a snarky comment they tell you.
It’s only helpful to them. And you are actually their customer or viewer or their entertainment. Not a successful business yourself. Because it’s just all misinformation that all contradicts with the truth.
So not even sure if it’s worth trying to get advice or if it’s all just pointless, just to figure it out myself from experience, trial and error and learning from my own thinking than relying on any other thinking.
Anyway do you think this is just crazy and I’m going crazy or is there any truth to what I’m saying?
Let me know your brutal honest feedback

Can you help me with any advice about the list I created for high Elves (Old world)?
My first game will be against Dwarfs with a lot of war machines power + irondrakes, And more units than me.
My plan is to play aggressive, use the gryphon to reach the war machines and the wizard on chariot + dragon princes on the flank.
But I'm worried about my heroes been killed on turn 2 because the shooting power.
What do you thing? Any suggestions?

Twin wizards [1997 pts]

Warhammer: The Old World, High Elf Realms

++ Personajes [987 pts] ++
Archmage [400 pts] - Hand weapon - Level 4 Wizard - Lion Chariot of Chrace - Seed of Rebirth - Talisman of Protection - Lore Familiar - Chracian Hunter - Illusion
Archmage [345 pts] - Hand weapon - Level 4 Wizard - Lothern Skycutter [Eagle-Eye Bolt Thrower] - Ruby Ring of Ruin - Silvery Wand - Sea Guard - Elementalism
Noble [242 pts] - Great weapon - Full plate armour - Shield - General - Griffon - Seed of Rebirth - Dragon Helm - Pure of Heart
++ Unidades Básicas [502 pts] ++
14 Lothern Sea Guard [185 pts] - Hand weapons - Thrusting spears - Warbows - Light armour - Shields - Sea Master (champion) - Standard bearer - Musician
5 Silver Helms [132 pts] - Hand weapons - Lances - Hand weapons (Hooves) - Heavy armour - Barding - Shields - High Helm (champion) - Standard bearer
14 Lothern Sea Guard [185 pts] - Hand weapons - Thrusting spears - Warbows - Light armour - Shields - Sea Master (champion) - Standard bearer - Musician
++ Unidades Especiales [428 pts] ++
10 Swordmasters of Hoeth [162 pts] - Sword of Hoeth - Heavy armour - Drilled - Bladelord - Standard bearer
6 Dragon Princes [266 pts] - Lance - Full plate armour - Barding - Shield - Drakemaster [The Cloak of Beards] - Standard bearer
++ Unidades Singulares [80 pts] ++
Eagle-Claw Bolt Thrower [80 pts]
Creado con "Old World Builder"
[https://old-world-builder.com]