BCSP

大二在读/创业/AI Agent/产品出海

[BCSP @BcsBcsp]

我他妈真是服了，我的网络是真废了，国内短视频账号天天给我他妈的推女拳，X天天给我推印度人，真他妈服了

[BCSP @BcsBcsp]

@kevin430603 @gwwwdefuqb @jackzho7941435 建好个der，你知道什么叫建好吗，之前是木屋顶，现在变成了石头屋顶，这个是一样的东西吗，支黑能不能提升一下自己的知识水平

[BCSP @BcsBcsp]

@jackzho7941435 @Colimire1 你确实是傻逼

[BCSP @BcsBcsp]

@akui1121 @HuoQubot

[BCSP @BcsBcsp]

@520illusion @HuoQubot

[BCSP @BcsBcsp]

我用这个方法挣到了第一笔钱。

这也让我彻底领悟了第一个核心原则：

「永远以产品（市场需求）为核心，而非以你的（既有）能力为核心。」

你的能力，是在满足需求中被��逼”着增长的。

想知道我如何把这个原则用在B圈和B站？关注我，故事待续。

[BCSP @BcsBcsp]

我是一名大二学生，拒绝“常规”的大学路径。

我决定开始 100% 透明地记录我的创业思考，专注轻资产创业的实战复盘。

这会是一个同龄人「从0到1」的真实成长日志。

欢迎你来“见证”

[BCSP @BcsBcsp]

大一时我做的第一个项目：AI代码代写。

我几乎不懂代码。

我的切入点是：我发现AI写 70-80 行的短代码已非常成熟。

同时，我找到了一个“金矿”：TradingView 平台。

这是一个付费意愿极高的交易市场，而他们的代码需求，恰好就是 70-80 行。

[BCSP @BcsBcsp]

因此，对所有新入局的创作者，我唯一清醒的建议是：放弃在“大赛道”上创造奇迹的幻想。 你唯一的机会，是去抢占那些巨头尚未覆盖的“小型垂直赛道”。——并且，要用最强的行动力去抢。 时效性的窗口，是留给最先行动的人的。犹豫片刻，你就是下一个“我”。

[BCSP @BcsBcsp]

一个带点挫败感的复盘：我们总在谈内容、谈运营，但时效性在商业成功中的权重可能高达40%。 我曾预估一个B站号，哪怕早期做搬运，仅订阅费年收入就近6万。但当我真正入局时，现实远比想象的严峻。

[BCSP @BcsBcsp]

��们必须戳破一个幻想：那种80年代在车库里诞生下一个乔布斯或比尔盖茨的神话，已经终结。 如今的巨型平台，早已不是那个充满无限可能的“大车库”，它们是规则森严、格局已定的“超级大厦”。你无法再造电梯，你只能在大厦里找一个空置的铺位。

[BCSP @BcsBcsp]

记住这个战略分野：

错误的路径：做视频 -> 火 -> 赚钱（幻想）
正确的路径：有好产品 -> 做视频 -> 被需要的人知道 -> 赚钱（现实）

先有基石，再谈放大。不要本末倒置。

[BCSP @BcsBcsp]

关于做视频，��个必须戳破的残酷现实：

指望平台分成和播放量收益谋生，这条路几近已死。当几万播放仅换来几毛钱时，你就该明白，纯粹的“内容创作”本身，已无法支撑起一个事业。

[BCSP @BcsBcsp]

清醒的创作者，都是先有了一个真正值得被放大的“好项目”或“好产品”——你的服务、你的课程、你的实体商品。

然后，才利用视频这个工具，为其发声，实现精准的“告知”与“推广”。

[Naval @naval]

https://t.co/bcFr3DaKGT

Reading Deutsch across all the different disciplines is very useful. Even when he talks about memes and meme theory—that comes from evolution, but crosses over straight into epistemology, conjecture, and criticism.

It reaches far beyond his definition of wealth: the set of physical transformations that you can effect. That takes into account both capital and knowledge, and it clearly shows that knowledge is a bigger component. That can be brought into business and applied into your everyday life. It can apply to the wealth of nations and it can apply to the wealth of individuals.

So there are a lot of parts that interconnect.

He says that good explanations are hard to vary. So when you look back on a good explanation, you say, “Well, how could it have been otherwise? This is the only way this thing could have worked.”

All these different parts fit together and constrain each other in such a way that there’s now some emergent property or some complexity or some outcome that you didn’t expect—some explanation that neatly explains everything.

That doesn’t just apply to good explanations. It applies to product development.

Good products are hard to vary.

Look at the iPhone: this smooth, perfect, beautiful jewel. The form factor hasn’t changed that much since the original one. It’s all around the single screen, the multi-touch, embedding the battery, making it fit into your pocket, making it smooth and sliding in your hand—creating the Platonic ideal of the truly personal, pocketable computer.

That product is hard to vary. Both Apple and its competitors have tried to vary it across 16 generations of iPhone and they haven’t been able to materially vary it. They’ve been able to improve the components and improve some of the underlying capabilities; but materially, the form factor is hard to vary. They designed the right thing.

There’s a famous saying from Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, the airplane wing is perfect “not because there’s nothing left to add, but because there’s nothing left to take away.”

That airplane wing is hard to vary.

When we figure out the proper design of the spacecraft to get to Mars, I will bet you that both at a high level and in the details for quite a long time, that thing will be hard to vary until there’s some breakthrough technology.

The basic internal combustion engine design was hard to vary until we got batteries good enough and then we created the electric car. And now the electric car is hard to vary.

In fact, there’s a complaint now among some designers that in modern society, products and objects are starting to look all the same. Is that because of Instagram? Why is that?

Well, at least in the car case, they all look like they’ve been through a wind tunnel design because that is the most efficient design. The reason they all look swoopy and streamlined is because they’re all going through a wind tunnel and they’re trying to find the thing that cuts through the air with minimal resistance. And so they do all end up looking the same because that design is hard to vary without losing efficiency.

Good writers write with such high density and interconnectedness that their works are fractal in nature. You will meet the knowledge at the level at which you are ready to receive it.

You don’t have to understand it all. This is the nature of learning. You read it, you got 20% of it. Then you go back through it, you got 25% of it. You listen to one of Brett Hall’s podcasts alongside it, now you got 28% of it. Now you go to Grok or ChatGPT, you ask it some questions, you dig in on some part, now you got 31% of it.

All knowledge is a communication between the author and the observer or the reader, and you both have to be at a certain level to absorb it. When you’re ready to receive different pieces, you will receive different pieces, but you’ll always get something out of it no matter what level you’re at, as long as you can even just communicate and read the language.