This is why you schedule angry emails to be sent the next day. Maybe you’ll wake up and realize it’s not a problem at all

Two methods I have found useful. If it seems an intractable problem, you've made two goals equal. Figure out the conflicting goals and decide which will give way, such as once I think about it I realize the unspoken goal is I don't want to challenge Mom, M-I-L, Boss, etc.

Second method is 6 steps: Intel, intel, intel, always be gathering intel. Clear mind, set aside emotions. Clear vision of what I want, the more clear and detailed, the more likely I'll get the result I want. Detailed plan to get from current reality to vision. Execute plan. Debrief: what worked, what mistakes, etc.

be first, smart, or cheat.

There's way number 1.5: Solve a different but related problem, which gives you like 80% of the benefits of solving the original problem, but at 20% of the cost. This allows you to experience much less pain without an investment of resources you can't afford.

Aka "quickfix" or "hack".

I wrote this up as the four disagreements.

https://blog.onepatchdown.net/philosophy/2023/10/03/four-pil...

There's a 4th way, but it works least often. Maybe Method 2.5 fits better: Wait for the problem to fix itself to your level of risk. Ex: This road is blocked. I have a good news it won't be blocked in X days/months/years. Let's just wait until it's a little better for us to travel down and do something else for a just little while. It's a hybrid between waiting for the path to open up for everyone and forcing your way through. Taking a stepping stone between changing the world and changing your solution to the problem.

A favorite of mine: assume a sub-problem has a solution (even though it doesn't), and solve everything else assuming that solution holds.

I find that after I do that, once I have a solution for everything else, a less-general solution to the sub-problem is often sufficient to keep the global solution valid.

Where does "Make the problem worse so someone else fixes it" fit?

It's very interesting that he's talking about start-ups.

I worked for one of Fragner's start-ups and it was an unmitigated disaster in all ways.

He secretly recorded a meeting with myself.

The site's text is medium blue on a gray background with a font-weight of 300. I'm all for a bit of visual variety and personal expressiveness but this is pushing the boundaries of accessible legibility on some systems and screens.

(Yes, I realize there are various browser accessibility tools, reader modes and even custom CSS overrides, but I'd prefer not being forced to force those things on for all sites - because it means that "bit of visual variety and personal expressiveness" no longer exists for increasing numbers of visitors.)

I’d add a fourth option: not over-trusting the methodology itself.

The world isn’t a perfect-information game, and many “problems” are defined under uncertainty.