In theory, consistency is about being disciplined, determined, and unwavering.
In practice, consistency is about being adaptable. Don't have much time? Scale it down. Don't have much energy? Do the easy version. Find different ways to show up depending on the circumstances. Let your habits change shape to meet the demands of the day.
Adaptability is the way of consistency.
“The distance between deciding and doing is the single most reliable predictor of whether your life will be extraordinary or ordinary.”
These three paragraphs will change your life:
Airbnb CEO, Brian Chesky, on the most effective way to eliminate meetings:
"The reason there's too many meetings in a company isn't because they don't have meeting-no-meeting Wednesdays. It's because they have too many people."
He advocates for a small, elite workforce over bloated teams:
"We want a small, lean, elite, highly skilled team, not a team of kind of mid-level battalion type people. And the reason why is every person brings a communication tax."
He explains how mediocre hiring compounds into dysfunction:
"The old saying: A players hire A players. B players hire C players. I would like to amend it: B players hire lots of C players. Because those are the kind of people that like building empires."
And those C players can't do the work alone, so they hire more people, who go in different directions, creating even more meetings and admin tax.
His solution at Airbnb was radical—eliminate management layers entirely:
"I got rid of layers of management. I went back to functional. You can only manage the function if you're an expert. You don't manage people. You manage people through the work."
He credits this philosophy to Jony Ive, who believed most design leaders get it backwards. Ive's approach was to focus on the work itself and build a team that designs together.
Elite teams don't need elaborate management structures — they need leaders who manage through the work itself.
I've never felt this much behind as a programmer. The profession is being dramatically refactored as the bits contributed by the programmer are increasingly sparse and between. I have a sense that I could be 10X more powerful if I just properly string together what has become available over the last ~year and a failure to claim the boost feels decidedly like skill issue. There's a new programmable layer of abstraction to master (in addition to the usual layers below) involving agents, subagents, their prompts, contexts, memory, modes, permissions, tools, plugins, skills, hooks, MCP, LSP, slash commands, workflows, IDE integrations, and a need to build an all-encompassing mental model for strengths and pitfalls of fundamentally stochastic, fallible, unintelligible and changing entities suddenly intermingled with what used to be good old fashioned engineering. Clearly some powerful alien tool was handed around except it comes with no manual and everyone has to figure out how to hold it and operate it, while the resulting magnitude 9 earthquake is rocking the profession. Roll up your sleeves to not fall behind.
Good Products are Opinionated.
“Every great founder I’ve seen up close, or even from afar, is highly opinionated and they’re almost dictatorial in how they run things.
Also, early-stage teams are opinionated. And the products they build are opinionated. Opinionated means they have a strong vision for what it should and should not do.
If you don’t have a strong vision of what it should and should not do, then you end up with a giant mess of competing features.
@Jack Dorsey has a great phrase: “Limit the number of details and make every detail perfect.” And that’s especially important in consumer products. You have to be extremely opinionated. All the best products in consumer-land get there through simplicity.
You could argue the recent success of ChatGPT and similar AI chatbots is because they’re even simpler than Google.
Google looked like the simplest product you could possibly build. It was just a box. But even that box had limitations in what you could do.
You were trained not to talk to it conversationally. You would enter keywords and you had to be careful with those keywords. You couldn’t just ask a question outright and get a sensible answer. It wouldn’t do proper synonym matching, and then it would spit you back a whole bunch of results. That was complicated. You’d have to sift through and figure out which ones were ads, which ones were real, were they sorted correctly, and then you’d have to click through and read it.
ChatGPT and the chatbot simplified that even further. You just talk to it like a human—use your voice or you type and it gives you back a straight answer.
It might not always be right, but it’s good enough, and it gives you back a straight answer in text or voice or images or whatever you prefer.
So it simplifies what we looked at as the simplest product on the Internet, which was formerly Google, and makes it even simpler. And you just cannot make a product that’s simple enough.
To be simple, you have to be extremely opinionated. You have to remove everything that doesn’t match your opinion of what the product should be doing. You have to meticulously remove every single click, every single extra button, every single setting.
In fact, things in the settings menu are an indication that you’ve abdicated your responsibility to the user. Choices for the user are an abdication of your responsibility. Maybe for legal or important reasons, you can have a few of these, but you should struggle and resist against every single choice the user has to make.
In the age of TikTok and ChatGPT, that’s more obvious than ever. People don’t want to make choices. They don’t want the cognitive load. They want you to figure out what the right defaults are and what they should be doing and looking at, and they want you to present it to them.”
The Paradox of Effort
You have to put in more effort to make something appear effortless.
Effortless, elegant performances are simply the result of a large volume of consistent, effortful practice.
Small things become big things.
Simple is not simple.