Blayne Sucks

Below is a (hilarious) video about executing ideas that I saw thanks to Merlin Mann’s posting of it at the beginning of the year. Warning: this video is possibly not safe for work watching due to some language.

[Side note: If you've never heard of Ze Frank before, then I would recommend Ze Frank's TED talk.]

One of the things I would like to focus on is a quote from Ze Frank that Merlin highlighted as well. This quote from the middle of the video:

And the longer they wait, the more they convince themselves of how perfectly that idea should executed…But the bummer is most ideas kind of suck when you do them.

I love this quote and really the whole section in the video where Ze talks about ideas. There’s something both true and subtle in what he says. Think about everything you’ve ever seen, read, heard, or come across that made you think, “Wow, that’s clever.” You would never have felt that way without someone else executing their idea. Here’s the subtle part: How many ideas are just as clever, but were not executed upon by their thinker?

Good economists recognize the possible value in unrealized potential. Bastiat may have been the first to write about what is seen and what is not seen. Essentially, his argument boils down to this: Fixing a broken window may appear to be productive, but if that were really the case, then we should all break every window we can find to help improve the economy. In reality, the money spent on fixing the window could have been spent on something else that would have improved the world before the window was broken.

Although Bastiat was talking about the allocation of resources generally across industries, I think his argument applies equally well at the personal level. We need to allocate our resources on things that are actually productive and not just on things that appear to be productive. We need to stop convincing ourselves that our ideas are inherently valuable when they are actually not. If you convince yourself that you should hold off in executing on your idea until you’ve completely thought it through, then you will never realize the potential of the idea. It’s not enough to stop being actively unproductive; we have to force ourselves to continually produce.

Paul Graham has an excellent essay on ideas for startups that also touches on the value of an idea without execution. The hardest part of founding a successful startup is not generating the idea, it is executing the idea. In other words, there’s no such thing as a million dollar idea. Google was not a million dollar idea. Facebook was not a million dollar idea. Graham’s proof of this is dead simple:

Actually, startup ideas are not million dollar ideas, and here’s an experiment you can try to prove it: just try to sell one. Nothing evolves faster than markets. The fact that there’s no market for startup ideas suggests there’s no demand. Which means, in the narrow sense of the word, that startup ideas are worthless.

In other words, Google and Facebook are examples of million dollar execution, and I believe this concept is just as important at a personal level. Executing ideas is much harder than not executing them. There are all kinds of blogs out there that are devoted exclusively to dispensing advice on how to be more productive. It is easy to feel productive by reading them. It is easy to feel like you’re working on stuff. We humans are extraordinarily good at distracting ourselves or, as Ze Frank pointed out, convincing ourselves not to act, which is probably why executing ideas is so valuable.

The Cult of Done is the only example I can find that might (maybe) take executing ideas a step too far. They take an extreme position on doing things rather than thinking of things to do. (Here’s a good analysis on the Cult of Done.) We certainly need to emphasize actual execution of ideas since most people fall so far on the side of thinking and not even close to the side of doing. Perhaps adopting the spirit of The Cult of Done wouldn’t be a bad thing. After all, Ze’s right: most ideas really do suck when you do them, and the only way to find out is through execution.

John Stossel had another great special entitled “Bailouts and Bull” that takes on topics ranging from the recent spate of massive government bailouts to the current reality of the American dream. Other topics include medical marijuana, privatization of the highway system, universal pre-kindergarten education, and the US-Mexico border. Previously, I posted about his Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics, which focuses on similar themes. If you liked that, then you’ll absolutely love this show. Here’s a great (short) introduction to the show (and a more complete interview with Drew Carey):

Part 1 of the show:

Part 2 of the show:

Part 3 of the show:

Part 4 of the show:

Part 5 of the show:

Part 6 of the show:

Outliers: The Story of Success is the latest best-selling book by Malcom Gladwell, author of Blink. It describes the impact of culture, opportunity, and environment on the extraordinarily successful. For example, it provides an explanation for the success of Bill Gates, the Beatles, and Joe Flom. It also provides an explanation for the lack of extraordinary success of some for whom extraordinary success seemed likely. If you are interested, here’s a New Yorker article with a similar premise.

The premise of Outliers is that extreme success is driven more by opportunity than talent. This means that our cultural background can give us small advantages that accumulate almost like compound interest over the course of our lives. Gladwell argues that the typical understanding of outliers in society is wrong. He claims it is easier to believe that the Hollywood hero is heroic based on some inherent quality rather than hard work, seized opportunity, and a little bit of luck. He believes that inherent talent is emphatically not the real story of success.

In a very broad sense, I agree with Gladwell’s assessment of extreme success. Success looks more like Batman than Superman. For those who haven’t kept up on their comics, Batman was a human like everyone else on the planet, but he was wealthy (opportunity) and had a random tragic event shape the course of his life (luck). Then he dedicated himself to his craft (hard work) and became a superhero crime fighter. On the other hand, Superman was an alien from another planet who, quite simply, was more powerful than everyone else. Now, Superman clearly had to choose to be a superhero and he had to make sacrifices along the way, but his overpowering natural gifts represent the typical way people view those who have achieved extraordinary success.

Aside from this broad agreement, I take issue with the way that Gladwell defines success throughout the book. ‘Success’ is described as everything from making the championship game in a junior hockey league to being one of the 75 wealthiest humans to ever walk the face of the Earth. Sure, if you want to be a founding partner in one of the world’s top five law firms, you’re going to have to have a few lucky breaks along the way, but what if your definition of success is living the upper middle class American dream? It’s never clear just how far ‘beyond normal’ Gladwell believes his premise holds.

One great example that stretches the ‘beyond normal’ limit is Gladwell’s discussion of the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) in the context opportunity over talent. KIPP schools are open-enrollment public schools for traditionally under-resourced urban areas. They are intense. Students at KIPP schools spend far more time working, learning, and doing homework than in traditional public schools. They have also had dramatically better results. Imagine that: If you work harder, you achieve more.

Gladwell argues that we can manufacture ‘success’ by paying attention to cultural legacies and understanding the importance of providing opportunity. This is where the book becomes transparently political. The thesis seems to evolve into a rainbow wonderland where we are all capable of extreme success. Of course, this all depends on what he really means by ‘success.’ It’s idiotic to think that we can all be professional athletes or one of the 75 wealthiest people ever. (Hint: there are more than 75 of us.) Not everyone will be lucky enough to fit all the background criteria and cultural landmarks necessary to have tons of opportunity staring them in the face. Some things cannot be controlled; some things, such as hard work and discipline, can be.

What the book really needs is a clarification of what Gladwell means by ‘success.’ Without this clarification, the book loses cohesion and it becomes unclear how broadly applicable the ideas described really are. In some stories, he clearly shows that hard work and discipline are necessary, but not sufficient, for extreme success (Bill Gates, Joe Flom). In other stories, he advocates that we can all achieve extreme success by simply manipulating our cultural environment (Korean Air, KIPP). In one story, he tells the story of Christopher Langan as someone who is apparently unsuccessful (or at least as someone who hasn’t lived up to his potential). These disparate stories make the book feel like more of a collection of anecdotes about different types of success than a single “story of success.”

All in all, it’s a very entertaining book, but I recommend reading it with a critical eye. It’s important to understand the definition of success for each story and to separate things that can be controlled from those that cannot be controlled.

Larry Lessig spoke at Google about his Change Congress movement on February 19th of this year. Although I respect Larry Lessig deeply for the incredible way that he articulates his concerns, I can’t agree with his approach to improving trust in the government and fighting corruption in Congress. Essentially, he believes that money engenders mistrust, even when it doesn’t actually affect policy decisions. He thinks we need to radically change the way funding for elections works in the government by making elections publicly funded. The goal of this is to reduce corruption in Congress by allowing the public to trust their politicians, or at least to eliminate a major barrier to trusting politicians. If you are interested, I have embedded the video below:

My primary problem with his view is best visible around the 49.5 minute mark, which is during the Q&A session after the presentation. The questioner asks about other forms of money influencing policy. Lessig’s response is essentially to say that other forms of money are acceptable so long as the direct tit-for-tat is eliminated. He claims that the change he desires isn’t as impossible as we might think. He is alright with money being spent to advocate for a political position so long as the money is not being used to bribe a particular politician. Essentially, he wants to remove any possibility that a politician will be paid for a political position.

This is an extraordinarily fine distinction to make simply because there are so many different forms of “payment.” He talks about politicians choosing a political position because a lobbiest would fund a swimming pool for them if they did. This is a relatively black and white case that almost everyone can agree is bad. However, what about a policy conference in Hawaii? Does the answer change if the conference is held in Lincoln, Nebraska? Certainly it should be legal for an organization to cover travel expenses to enable face-to-face discussions with legislators, but where do you draw the line? When does an important policy conference turn into a junket?

The problem is not just about trying to split hairs over what constitutes a direct payment to a candidate. There are so many other ways that money affects an election. Special interest groups can buy issue ads, which are effectively unregulated since all they have to do is pass the pathetic magic words test. Celebrities have a megaphone through which they can speak. How much money would it cost a random soccer mom from Iowa to match the impact of Oprah’s endorsement? Powerful CEOs, Union leaders, academics, and other non-politicians can sway an election by speaking, organizing rallies, putting together publicity events, and generally campaigning for their chosen politician. At what point does this “speech” count as “money?”

The money quote (pardon the pun) of his entire presentation is part of his answer to that same question (transcribed from his speech):

Until you focus on how this economy has changed in the last 12 years and realize that all we’re talking about is just getting us back to 40 years ago, like the balance of 40 years ago, then I think it’s not such an extraordinary, radical change.

Lawrence Lessig

Richard Nixon, 37th President of the United States

Ahh, the balance of 40 years ago, when Richard Nixon had just been sworn into office. Truly, such is the picture of trust in the government. Perhaps I’m just taking advantage of a verbal miscue (though if you’ll listen to his talk, I don’t think I’m taking this out of context), but more broadly, has there ever been a time when any government was not, quite simply, just generally corrupt? These are human institutions with built-in human flaws.

Let me be clear, I agree with Lessig when he says that we can’t trust our politicians. I might even be convinced to support some form of public funding for elections. I simply disagree that public funding of elections will affect corruption in government in any revolutionary fashion. There are just too many ways that “money” can influence an election. I’ll paraphrase something I first heard years ago on an episode of The West Wing: “Money in politics is like water on cement; it finds every crack and crevice.”

I’m not saying anything new here. Perhaps Tim Lee said it best:

Lessig seems to think there once was, or someday can be, a pristine political process untainted by “money in politics.” But that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the political process is and how it works.

Timothy Lee

Government, not money, is the problem. The whole point of politics is to apply one rule to a group of people who disagree about what to do. Of course the process is going to be corrupt; that’s the only possible outcome. The political elite always get better outcomes than the average citizen. So what is a better solution? If you can’t eliminate corruption in government, then you should limit government as much as possible. Limited government is the best, the only, way to reduce corruption in government.

Our government requires transparency to operate as a functional participatory democracy. It’s not optional. If we do not have an informed citizenry, then we don’t have a participatory democracy. The Sunlight Foundation considers improving transparency to be a key reason for their existence. Larry Lessig wants to improve transparency in congressional funding to Change Congress. Hugo Teufel, the former Chief Privacy Officer at the Department of Homeland Security, considers transparency to be the most important principle when it comes to privacy in the war on terror.

The first step in transparency is access, so let me ask a simple question: Are U.S. Government documents copyrighted? More specifically, Are State or Federal Laws protected as copyrighted works in and of themselves? Oregon decided to use copyright law to protect their statutes from being posted online. In this case, Carl Malamud of Public Resource fought back. If your intuition is telling you that laws are in the public domain and not subject to copyright, then you are correct for the most part, but the situation is really quite a bit more complicated than that.

To investigate a bit of this complication, consider the way the government publishes the law. It’s done in a piecemeal fashion, one law at a time. Yes, there is some structure to the publishing process, but you don’t have to read much of a law to realize that there are a zillion cross references to other laws. This doesn’t even begin to include case law, which clarifies the interpretation of a legal text. Ed Felten poses the scenario thusly:

Suppose I gave you a big stack of paper containing all of the laws ever passed by Congress (and signed by the President). This wouldn’t be very useful, if what you wanted was to know whether some action you were contemplating would violate the law. How would you find the laws bearing on that action? And if you did find such a law, how would you determine whether it had been repealed or amended later, or how courts had interpreted it?

Companies like Thompson West have made billions of dollars publishing information to guide lawyers that must answer questions like this. Typically, these summaries and indices are protected under copyright law as extra-value content. Thus, for virtually all practical purposes, U.S. Government Documents are copyrighted. If you are interested in more information on this, I would highly recommend James Grimmelman’s primer on the subject.

Of course, it’s not just legal texts that are technically in the public domain, but remain plagued by access problems. Court records are also public documents. Once again, this is critical to the very structure of our government. The words “secret government trial” should send chills down the spine of any American. However, as Joe Lieberman recently argued, they are still “behind a paid firewall.” (This firewall apparently comes complete with a government website from 1999.) Carl Malamud of Public Record is once again on the case.

Side note: Carl Malamud is running a campaign to be nominated by the Obama administration as the Public Printer of the United States. He’s garnered the support of Larry Lessig, Tim O’Reilly, and the EFF. (Not to mention Canadians like Cory Doctorow and Tim Bray!) You can read more about his campaign at Yes We Scan.

Technology is changing the landscape of transparency in government documents rapidly. Many of the problems are already solved. The cost of maintaining a website “containing all of the laws ever passed by Congress (and signed by the President)” is orders of magnitude cheaper than managing all this information in print. Ed Felten’s group at Princeton has argued extensively for an open government model that would just give us the data.

Yesterday the Obama administration announced that Vivek Kundra will be the “Chief Information Officer” for the United States. If you are interested in more information on Kundra, I would strongly recommend this excellent podcast on transparency in the Obama administration from the Technology Liberation Front. They discuss their thoughts on the position, his experience as the CTO for the city government of Washington DC, and several other aspects of transparency in the Obama administration.

The future is quite interesting for the development of transparency in government documents. Personally, I think dramatic improvements in public access of U.S. government documents are inevitable, whether they come from individuals like Carl Malamud, corporations like Thompson West, or from the government itself. The only question left is when…

[Update: The Technology Liberation Front posted another podcast today about PACER and accessing online court records. It features Tim Lee, James Grimmelmann, and Steve Schultze. I highly recommend it!]