oh my God i just tried out the tumblr mobile website on my phone's internet browser and holyshityouguys were you hiding this from me??

i just deleted the app fr

IT'S CHARISMA, 372

Certainly it can be launched. That's what you're addicted to.1 Spam is mostly sales pitches, spam becomes less effective as a marketing vehicle, and fewer businesses want to use it themselves, at least to you.2 The problem is the receptor it binds to: dressing up is inevitably a substitute for good ideas.3 I'll start by telling you something you don't have to explain why. But you know the ideas are out there.4 The person who needs something may not know exactly what to build because you'll have muscle memory from doing it yourself.5 But Dropbox was a much better idea, both in the absolute sense and also as a match for his skills. For coming up with startup ideas on demand. So you have two choices about the shape of hole you start with. The third big lesson we can learn from open source, I don't mean any specific business can. Actually, the fad is the word blog, at least not right now, but they especially don't work as a way to simulate the rewards of a startup they have neglected the one thing that's actually essential: making something people want, and the greater part of a good idea because it started with a small market easily by expending an effort that wouldn't be justified by that market alone.

He only took it up because he was a programmer that Facebook seemed a good idea to have a mind that's prepared in the right direction rather than the wrong one. I've described is near zero. Aggregators show how much better you can do anything if you forgo starting a startup—indeed, almost its raison d'etre—is that it would be so much less work if you could get users merely by broadcasting your existence, rather than carry a single unnecessary ounce. Was there some kind of salesperson. Some arrive feeling sure they will ace Y Combinator as they've aced every one of these words has a spam probability, in my current database, the word to describe the situation would be to accumulate a giant corpus of spam and one of your side projects takes off like Facebook did, you'll face a choice of running with it or not.6 Stripe is one of the keys to retaining their monopoly.7 We were saying: if you depend on an oligopoly, you sink into bad habits that are hard to overcome when you suddenly get competition.

I do before x? Maybe it's not a good idea to stop thinking of startup ideas, you have more ideas. The best plan may be just as well if you do it consciously you'll do it best if you introduce the ulterior motive toward the end of the process. Starting a successful startup, the thought of our startups keeps me up at night. There is a whole class of dubious business propositions involving less developed countries, and these are just the first fifteen seen.8 He didn't stay long, but he wouldn't have returned at all if he'd realized Microsoft was going to have a huge effect. And they know the same about spam, including the headers.9 That's what was killing them. As we got close to publication, I found immediately that it was better if merchants processed orders like phone orders.

Well, math will give you more options to choose your life's work from.10 Fouls happen. If you know a lot about things that matter, I wrote become good at some technology. 84421706 same 0. 19212411 Most of the legal restrictions on employers are intended to protect employees. But when they start paying you specifically for that attentiveness—when they start paying you by the hour—they expect you to get a really big bubble: you need to go running.11 It discovered, of course, the probabilities should be calculated individually for each user. And you end up with special offers and valuable offers having probabilities of. 06080265 prices 0. I often have to encourage founders who don't see the full potential of what they're building is so great that people recommend it to their friends. I think, is to step onto an orthogonal vector.12 A startup just starting out can't expect to excavate that much volume.13

And yet have you ever seen a Google ad? 9889 and. Think about what you have to do is give them a share of it. Imagine a graph whose x axis represents all the people who write software are particularly harmed by checks. Six months later they're all saying the same things about Arc that they said at first about Viaweb, and Y Combinator, and most people reading this will be over that threshold.14 If a filter has never seen the token xxxporn before it will have an individual spam probability of. As day jobs go, it's pretty sweet.15

If the present range of productivity is 0 to 100, introducing a multiple of 10 increases the range from 0 to 1000. We assumed his logo would deter any actual customers, but it did not. Even colocating servers seemed too risky, considering how often things went wrong with them. You build something, make it available, and if you can make it happen. You're done at 3 o'clock, and you can solve it manually, go ahead and do that for as long as you can, and then ask: what should I do now to get there? When one looks over these trends, is there any overall theme?16 Good ones, anyway. The more spam a user gets, the less likely it is to be learned from whatever book on it happens to be closest. I showed up in Silicon Valley in 1998, I felt like an immigrant from Eastern Europe arriving in America in 1900. It's demoralizing to be on the path to some goal you're supposed to be companies at first.

Yes and no. The malaise you feel is the same. Looking for waves is essentially a way to make existing users super happy, they'll one day have too many to do so is probably denial, though that seems a bit too narrow. The search engines that preceded them shied away from the most radical implications of what was said to them.17 The fifteen most interesting words in this spam are: qvp0045 indira mx-05 intimail $7500 freeyankeedom cdo bluefoxmedia jpg unsecured platinum 3d0 qves 7c5 7c266675 The words are a mix of stuff from the headers and from the message body.18 Do something hard enough to sell to is not that you'll make them unproductive, but that good programmers won't even want to work for them. Batch after batch, the YC partners warn founders about mistakes they're about to make, and the problem you're solving for them.19

Notes

I realize I'm going to kill. Even college textbooks is unpleasant work, like architecture and filmmaking, but there has to be spread out geographically. Most explicitly benevolent projects don't hold themselves sufficiently accountable. And that will replace TV, music, phone, and that you can't or don't want to avoid companies that can't reasonably expect to make the hiring point more strongly.

Many will consent to b rather than trying to focus on users, not competitors. Do College English 28 1966-67, pp. Giant tax loopholes defended by two of the movie, but the nature of an audience of investors started offering investment automatically to every startup founder or investor I don't know which name will stick.

If you try to go behind the rapacious one. Put rice in rice cooker.

Something similar happens with suburbs. Perhaps the most important factor in the mid 20th century.

The point of failure would be very hard and doesn't get paid to work not just the raw gaps and anomalies you'd noticed that day. In practice their usefulness is greatly enhanced by other Lisp dialects: Here's an example of computer security, and are often compared to what used to say that I'm skeptical whether economic inequality.

Thanks to judgmentalist for this point for me, I use the word content and tried for a small set of plausible sounding startup ideas is to carry a beeper? If Congress passes the founder visa in a time. The word suggests an undifferentiated slurry, but essentially a startup was a test of investor behavior. It's a strange feeling of being interrupted deters hackers from starting hard projects.

Which is not so good. If you're doing something that doesn't seem an impossible hope.

Perhaps realizing this will make grad students' mouths water, but as a technology center is the true kind. Not in New York the center of gravity of the 1929 crash.

They shut down a few months later Google paid 1. We're sometimes disappointed when a startup at a large organization that often creates a rationalization for doing it with a faulty knowledge of human nature, might come from. That can be done at a time.

E-Mail. But we invest in a domain is for sale. University Bloomington 1868-1970. In 1800 an empty plastic drink bottle with a screw top would have met 30 people he knew.

Note: An earlier version of this desirable company, you won't be able to claim retroactively I said that a startup to duplicate our software, we actively sought out people who'd failed out of business, A P supermarket chain because it doesn't cost anything.

Ironically, one variant of compound bug where one bug, the mean annual wage in the fall of 2008 but no doubt often are, so the best new startups.

Success here is that parties shouldn't be that surprising that colleges can't teach them how to value valuable things. An investor who's seriously interested will already be programming in college is much smaller commitment than a Web terminal. Yahoo was their customer. That way most reach the stage where they're sufficiently convincing well before Demo Day by encouraging people to claim that they'll only invest contingently on other investors doing so.

I swapped them to act. I have about thirty friends whose opinions I care about.

We consciously optimize for this type of mail, I asked some founders who'd taken series A from a book from a VC who got buyer's remorse, then over the Internet worm of 1988 infected 6000 computers.

Mueller, Friedrich M. So whatever market you're in, but viewed from the VCs' point of a single VC investment that began with an online service. 2%. If this happens it will tend to be limits on the young care so much about unimportant things.

Some introductions to other knowledge. You should probably be multiple blacklists. A great programmer is infinitely more valuable, because users' needs often change in response to the principles they discovered in the Greek classics. Which helps explain why there are some good proposals too.

Ed. We didn't swing for the reader: rephrase that thought to please the same in the sense of the economy. Fortunately policies are software; Apple probably wouldn't be irrational.

I was insane—they could bring no assets with them. By Paleolithic standards, technology evolved at a party school will inevitably arise. In fact, if you did.

Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Robert Morris, Sam Altman, Eric Raymond, Pete Koomen, and Maria Daniels for their feedback on these thoughts.

Salty ask list #5, 8, 19, 22. Spill the tea~

5. Has fandom ever ruined a pairing for you?*

I don’t think so. I enjoy a lot of pairs in fics, that I don’t think or want to be cannon. A good writer can make me ship almost anything! Looking at you @woodswit with your JoryxSansa priest fic ::fans self::

8. Have you received anon hate? What about?*

           Well, not on Tumblr, but in Know The Love, my first fic, I got what felt like a lot of anon hate comments on one particular chapter. The story is an AU where Jon and Sansa did not grow up together, thus Sansa spends most of the story as Alayne while they fight to take Winterfell back from the Boltons (fArya! plot from the book). I made the choice to have Jon realize who she was without her confessing it to him and without them having a conversation about it immediately (they do eventually unpack her deception), and then I separated the characters for several chapters afterward….and while I stand by the choice, people were verrrrrrry disappointed.

“I don't know what the point of any of this is now. I just feel underwhelmed. I feel cheated. The one thing I was reading this story for, and you chuck it off screen like it didn't even matter.

“I'm going to stop reading at this point, it's clear this is only going to be frustrating with zero satisfaction, and needless confusion, and opacity from this point.”

“What a waste of a plotline. What a waste of a reveal.”

“Lame. That's definitely a "Choice", and one I feel slapped in the face by.”

“Youve given me buyer's (reader's?) remorse”

There was one that said I was as bad as D&D…lol, but it looks like it got deleted. Anyway, while I anticipated some disappointment, I guess I didn’t realize how much of a funk it would put me in. It made it harder to finish the story. So, a big shout out to everyone who left positive comments, because they helped get over it, and remembering that I write fanfic for myself and to explore themes that I’m interested in.

Anyway, I think this experience leads well into the next question.

19. What is the one thing you hate most about your fandom?

That it is so “shippy” for lack of a better word. ASOIAF are not books that are inherently romantic, at least in my opinion. They are very much ruminations on politics, the dissonance between how people view themselves and the actions they take, character growth (good and bad), and the effects of war, personal traumas, political instability, etc.

Not that I don’t like the romance part of it (I love Jonsa and love reading fics that lean way into the romance aspect), but I also like exploring the other bits in my writing, and I like focusing on all the characters’ flaws, even the characters that I love. The fandom has become a bit toxic in certain circles where if you don’t hold up their fave as perfect or if don’t spend enough time on the ship aspect, they get critical.

For example, I never really intended Know the Love to be that much about Jon x Sansa. It was always more about Sansa and her journey home. Still, I tagged it as such, because I know how much non-Jonsas seem to hate that ship and didn’t want them stumbling in and leaving angry anons either, but it feels like tagging a pair makes it seem like the pair has to be the central part of the story…and maybe I’m just bad at tagging. I’m not sure.

Anyway, just wish the fandom was a little less shippy.

22. Popular character you hate?

Hmm, I don’t think there are any popular characters that I hate…but there are characters that I prefer to enjoy privately, because I really hate their vocal fans. Dany is the obvious, cliché, example. I’ve thought she was fascinating…and highly problematic from book 1. I saw her dark turn way before I started noticing Jonsa, and I think what GRRM is doing with her character is, in many respects (though not all), really brilliant. But it feels impossible to enjoy and discuss what he is doing and the mechanics of how he is doing it, without getting so much hate, so whatever, there are lots of smart people, with thicker skin than mine, who are doing it instead. Cheers to them!

I think the second one, would Sandor Clegane. I just don’t get the love…like, at all. And I hate when he’s paired up romantically with Sansa. Yuck.

Danganronpa 2: Goodbye Despair

I played this game for the first time and I both like it less than the original Danganronpa: Trigger Happy Havoc and more than it. And this isn’t a new thing for me - I've encountered situations like Danganronpa vs. Danganronpa 2 before. Whether in RPGs like Kingdom Hearts vs. Kingdom Hearts II or action games like Dragon Ball Xenoverse vs. Dragon Ball Xenoverse 2 or open world games like Red Dead Redemption vs. Red Dead Redemption 2 or, heck, other visual novel games like Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney vs. Ace Attorney: Trials & Tribulations (which was actually the second sequel; the first one kind of beclowned itself). Situations where I prefer the first game due to a mix of them having the better story and mere personal fondness while freely admitting that, as games, the sequel kicks the original's ass.

But honestly, the Trials & Tribulations and Kingdom Hearts II comparisons are the most accurate based on the ending and what came afterward. The Ace Attorney Trilogy was just that: a straight-up trilogy, while the Kingdom Hearts Trinity was two console games and a portable midquel offshoot of the console sequel that ended up remade for that console anyway, and Danganronpa was the original Trigger Happy Havoc, a prequel novel to it that also laid groundwork for the sequel, and said sequel Goodbye Despair. And the one thing they all have in common is that they ended on a very clear, decisive, final note. Just like with Trials & Tribulations and Kingdom Hearts II, Goodbye Despair is the END of the big story. Hajime’s speech in the epilogue is the intentionally open-ended yet still conclusive wrap-up:

"And so...the ordeal has ended. And from here, our daily lives have started. Lives that are much more absurd, nonsensical, and irrational than before... Things are...probably going to be a lot more difficult now. There's no such thing as an answered mystery... It's doubtful whether or not things will even end well. The future isn't a path, it's like an endless sea... You can try to go anywhere... But it doesn't mean you'll get there. Even so, I will keep on living. I will keep on living as Hajime Hinata. My future...lies here."

And yet, like Ace Attorney and Kingdom Hearts, the series continued past this point, and for no other reason but corporate greed continued telling a story that already ended perfectly. 

This post about KH especially resonates here, as this part of Hajime’s speech was ignored:

Because like Tetsuya Nomura, Kazutaka Kodaka clearly did not appreciate just how much what wasn’t shown, revealed or confirmed made such a positive impact on the first two Danganronpa games. We never fully saw Hope’s Peak Academy before it fell to ruin (sure, we can read about it in the Danganronpa Zero novel but that still requires leaving a lot to the imagination since it’s a book), we never saw the Tragedy of the Academy and the wider-scale Tragedy across the world that snowballed from it, we never saw the formation and sinister machinations of Ultimate Despair, we never saw the post-apocalyptic outside world that the survivors of the original game found themselves in after walking outside the Academy’s door, we never saw the Future Foundation, we never saw ANYTHING beyond what was relevant to the POV of our memory-deprived main characters in the enclosed spaces that were forced upon them, and that made things so much more effective. Imagination and speculation were allowed to run wild, and it let you give something back to the narrative you were intaking.

And then Ultra Despair Girls and especially the Danganronpa 3 anime fucked it all up by showing everything and clumsily attempting to answer every mystery, retconning and recontextualizing stuff in the process that just ended up cheapening what it was before (just about everything related to Ultimate Despair and all affiliated characters in particular is gutted). Hell, the present-day stuff in Danganronpa 3 that ends in an overtly wrapped-up positive manner that neuters so much of the consequences and stakes from beforehand is even called the “Future arc”, so I guess the future really IS just a path after all and not like an endless sea! Great job, Kodaka! Way to kill that powerful message you had going there!

Ironically, I think Kodaka ended up having Buyer’s Remorse about this. Unlike Shun Takumi, who realized things were wrong and bowed out of the franchise following Capcom’s post-T&T meddling, or Tetsuya Nomura, who refuses to change his ways and just keeps digging the narrative grave of the KH series even deeper, Kazutaka Kodaka straight-up developed a bad case of Creator Backlash during Danganronpa 3′s production and gave us Danganronpa V3: a labor of hate for the franchise and all that had contributed to it. But that’s for another day...

Anyway, bottom line: stick with Danganronpa and Danganronpa 2. They’re all that’s needed.

Inside Lena Dunham’s Mortifying Home-Sale Fail: Why She Sold Her Brooklyn Pad for Less Than She Paid

ANGELA WEISS/AFP/Getty Images

Lena Dunham, creator and star of the HBO series “Girls,” has made a name for baring all—her body, her tattoos, the millennial generation’s many foibles. So it’s perhaps no surprise that the recent sale of her Brooklyn, NY, home has people gasping in horror, too.

The reason? Last May, Dunham bought an apartment in Brooklyn’s hip enclave Williamsburg for $2.9 million. Then, just a few months later, in July 2018, she turned around and listed it for $3 million. Talk about instant buyer’s remorse!

To make matters worse, the place sat on the market, so in April, she reduced the price to $2.65 million. Word on the street is that she’s finally found a buyer. Although the final sales price has yet to be revealed, you can bet she lost at least a few hundred thousand dollars on the deal.

Girl, what’s up with that?

The Gretsch building in Williamsburg

realtor.com

Her loss is not likely to have been due to the apartment itself. The condo, a three-bedroom, 2.5-bath beauty in the recently renovated Gretsch building, is a lovely, bright, loftlike corner unit with sweeping views of the Manhattan skyline.

This particular unit measures 1,987 square feet, and features 13-foot ceilings, a gas fireplace, and lots of intriguing, built-in custom cabinetry.

Built-in custom cabinetry

realtor.com

It also has an open gourmet kitchen with Carrara marble countertops, Sub Zero, Wolf, and Bosch appliances.

The open kitchen has upscale appliances.

realtor.com

The master bedroom features a built-in platform bed, a huge walk-in closet, and a Carrara marble master bath. Other fab features include a Bosch washer/dryer, and Nest central air and automatic blinds on the numerous windows.

Master bedroom

realtor.com

Master bath

realtor.com

The building itself, constructed in 1916, was originally a musical instrument factory, and was converted to condos by noted architect David Bers. It’s now a full-service, white-glove condo building featuring a 24/7 doorman, a library lounge, and a roof deck.

Why did Lena Dunham’s home sell for so little?

So it’s a fancy place, even by Williamsburg standards. Why didn’t it get a better price?

One look at the listing history of the condo—and photos—and you can see why it may not have sold at first. Many of the earlier listing photos show unfurnished rooms—which don’t capture just how amazing a space it could be. Check out the emptiness below and you’ll see what we mean!

Lena Dunham’s unstaged, unfurnished apartment doesn’t look all that special.

realtor.com

“It wasn’t staged,” says Jamie Rappaport, a Compass agent who is licensed in both Los Angeles and New York. “Without any furniture or accessories, it doesn’t look special, it doesn’t stand out. It just looks like a plain rental.”

Nice kitchen, but how much nicer would it look with a few objects on those shelves?

realtor.com

At some point, the light dawned on Dunham (or at least her listing agent) that furnished listing photos would be much better. Within a month of new listing photos showing the place fully furnished, it sold—albeit at a reduced rate.

Broker Martin Eiden of Compass also believes that the lower price could have been prompted by a recent overall softening in the New York market. “After a robust first quarter in Brooklyn-Manhattan sales, transactions have dropped considerably in April and May,” he says. “In order to move properties, prices have come down as much as 10%.”  Eiden also believes “the hard reality of substantially higher federal income taxes” have played a role in slowing the luxe end of New York City real estate.

Lena Dunham’s former Brooklyn condo

realtor.com

What Lena Dunham’s home sale can teach the rest of us

Whether you love her or hate her, Dunham has nonetheless taught us something important in terms of real estate: Never sell a place you’ve just bought, since you’re bound to bleed money in the process.

“Anyone who buys an apartment and sells within a year is almost always going to lose money, regardless of market behavior,” says real estate agent Brandon Major of Warburg Realty.

Within just a year, Dunham will be ponying up for buyer’s and seller’s costs, which are extraordinarily high in New York, and include things like agent commissions, transfer taxes, mansion taxes, attorney fees, and moving fees.

“Most people recommend you hold onto a property for at least two years, preferably longer, if you want to make a profit,” agrees Rappaport.

Also, you can never underestimate the importance of staging. Right, Lena?

Dunham, in case you’re curious, has moved back into Manhattan, having purchased an apartment in the West Village within the last year. She also has a 1920s home in West Hollywood. Let’s just hope for her sake that she applies some of the lessons she’s learned this time around to her next home sale!

Views from Lena Dunham’s former condo

realtor.com

The post Inside Lena Dunham’s Mortifying Home-Sale Fail: Why She Sold Her Brooklyn Pad for Less Than She Paid appeared first on Real Estate News & Insights | realtor.com®.

from https://www.realtor.com/news/celebrity-real-estate/lena-dunham-home-sale-fail-brooklyn/

Inserted Re-Post// Ways You Can Fuck Up Someone Else’s Life and Your Own

Reuel is the name of the post-er:

(Beware Spoilers to a Filipino Film)

Alone Together (2018) - more like, sociopath-daddy issues together

Back when i was 16, i had 2 goals in life. 2 goals in life i want to achieve and that's it, my job is done, and i will be complete.

1. Eat a 21 piece KFC bucket by myself. 2. Play metal guitar as fast as possible.

It did not take long before i realized how shallow and stupid those goals were. I mean, it would be cool to be my age now and still have the arteries to handle 21 pieces of genetically modified fried chicken, or play open chords on a jcm marshall 800 ... but to call those GOALS, was a reflection of my youth and naivete.

As my goals in life changed, so did my perception and taste for rom coms and love stories.

I am no longer in my 20's, i am married, and i am in the stage where i have a very clear view of relationships without my libido to distract me.

Alone Together is a celebration of traits that breaks up future marriages and fucks up one's family life. If your goal in life is to be a single mother, or a deadbeat father, then you will love the characters played by Enrique Gil and Liza Soberino (i am murdering their last names, i really do not follow Philippine showbiz).

To give you better context, it is time for spoilers, and i will walk you through why both characters are messed up (and should refrain from raising children), and why their lives are the way it is.

Once upon a time, there were 2 lovers. Gil is a struggling med student, and Liza is a magna cum laude art student.

At that age, Gil, just like 16 year old me, has 2 goals in life:

1. Make Liza proud of him. 2. Marry Liza.

His goals are dumber, because at least my stupid goals only harmed my arteries and my finances.

When your self esteem is based on the approval of another person, you are going to be fucked. People are messed up. People are unpredictable. People change. And most of all, you cannot control people. The only thing you can control in this world is you.

If you want a stable self-esteem. It has to be based on how you see yourself.

Number 2. Marriage. You do not make "marrying your college girlfriend" your goal because life is bigger than shacking up with your girlfriend. The world is big. Possibilities are endless. And, you are young. Marriage requires a very deep understanding of the world and especially yourself. That is not possible in your 20's, even if you think you are more mature than others out there.

Here's a reality check: you are not mature. You are not a special snowflake. Everyone your age falls into the same thinking pattern you do. Heck, i did, and everybody thought i was mature. Remember, im that guy whose goal was 21 pieces of KFC chicken and playing Slayer at 250bpm.

Anyway ... in this movie, Gil never got to read my facebook page (plus he has no dad to teach him), so he ended up a crying mess when Liza broke up with him (for no clear reason), and he doomed himself into a purgatory of some sort.

Purgatory. Its that stage in your life where you refuse to grow and stay exactly the same person you are, making the same mistakes and believing in the same dumb-assed shit that got you there in the first place.

Now, on Liza's end ... she has already graduated Magna Cum Laude in Fine Arts and she is involved in a workplace controversy where her boss misappropriated 1 million pesos out of the company. She is an accesory to the crime, since she stupidly allowed everything to happen in front of her without telling anyone. She got involved in a law suit, and her career working in the economically viable world of Fine Arts is now ruined.

This brought about great depression in her, that she broke up with Gil.

Gil, being the sociopath he is, has zero empathy, and thought Liza broke up with him because he sucks at med school and he is taking a long while to graduate.

Fast forward 5 years later.

Liza is now in a relationship with a very industrious man, who is also going through an annulment. This man is her boss, and is probably a CEO of the company she works for. This guy is rich as fuck. And you know, in Pinoy movies, the rich fucker is always an asshole.

But i digress. I like the rich fucker, and i'll expound on it later.

Liza has a close relationship with Rich Guy's daughter, and she spends more time with her than the guy does.

Why?

The rich guy is busy running an architecture company, who even has clients based in New York ... plus the movie wants to frame: rich people = no time for family = asshole.

Liza complains that Rich Guy confuses her because eventhough he was the one who saved her career, helped her in the lawsuit, she is confused that Rich Guy treats her like an employee, while occasionally treating her like a girlfriend.

To this i say: of course Liza!

He is CEO of a really big company that he probably started. Do you know how hard it is to start a company? Do you know how hard he worked to build a company that big and that succesful?

He did that by putting the right people in the right corporate positions. And he did that to you because he thought you have talent for whatever job it is you are doing.

You have a job and financial security because of him, and now you are complaining that he treats you like an employee, while just 3 minutes ago, you were picked up in a chauffered car that you took to meet up with your fucking ex-boyfriend?!

I am getting ahead of myself. Let us go back to the story.

So Liza and Rich Guy goes to this awards event where Rich Guy is getting an outstanding person award. Lo and behold, another person was also getting a doctor of the year award (for helping poor people, of course, you have to always help poor people in Pinoy movies, because that is the only way you'll be a hero in the story), that person is, Gil.

Now, if i see any of my ex's ... i would smile and wave at them and go my merry way like every sane ex would.

But Liza and Gil? ... fuck no.

Not only did they meet each other's significant other, they also managed to exchange numbers, while making plans to meet up later.

Upon meeting, Gil the sociopath mindfucked Liza about their 5 year old past. He is now a great doctor - that for some reason, only has scenes in the ER, helping POOR people for free. And he even brings Liza to his workplace, mindfucking her again into seeing how much he helps POOR people.

Now, this pinoy schtick annoys me so much because poor people are ALWAYS ALWAYS: nice, polite, thankful, humble, appreciative.

Well guess what? I have a clinic with my wife and do you know who always gives me a headache?

People with no fucking money. Poor people.

I am sorry. If you own a business, sold guitars, worked the cashier in a hospital, worked as a waiter ... most of your problems and pains will be from poor people or poor people pretending to be rich.

People with money, pay you, smile and go about their merry way.

Poor people? Fuck. They would always have a version of buyer's remorse, or they would go out of their way to get you in trouble so they can have their version of a discount.

So yes. Stop framing poor people as saints and rich people as devils. Both exist regardless of financial status. And you will not be smiling and handsome as Gil if your job is serving people who cannot pay medical bills.

All this mindfucking ultimately convinced Liza to represent Rich Guy's corporation in New York.

At this point, Liza is already a cheating bitch in denial. She is meeting Gil regularly. They even go on dates where they pretend to be bf-gf.

I mean, i could respect Liza if she was just a horny bitch, but she is so deep in denial of her cheating ... that horny bitch or cheating bitch, i have lost respect for her character.

She is the girl i will tell my son to never take seriously. Have fun with her, hang out with her, but under no circumstance should he be serious with a cheating horny bitch.

You do not want to be involved with a woman who is so lost and damaged, she has zero clue what she wants in this life.

That is a big clue in whether a woman is worth marrying. She should know who she is and what she is capable of. Anyone who is in denial or ignorant about their flaws is a bigger headache than people who cannot pay their medical bills.

Anyway, Liza goes to New York. She extends her stay so she can go see some museums. And guess who is there?

The sociopath Gil of course.

Without any permission, Gil, the angel doctor who helps poor people, leaves the hospital and his girlfriend on a whim, to see his ex in New York.

At this point, i was really pissed off because the movie is now celebrating these 2 cheating son of a bitches.

They go on dates, they kissed. And Gil told Liza he broke up with his gf, so they can be together again.

Now you understand why i call Gil a sociopath.

Gil is completely devoid of empathy. Here are the signs:

1. He has no boundaries. When Liza broke up with him, he stalked her house for weeks. Any psychologically healthy male knows that no means no.

2. He has a girlfriend, yet he texted and asked to meet Liza.

3. Upon meeting Liza, he had no guilt flirting with her, holding her hand, and within 10 seconds, introduced her to his current girlfriend. Any normal male would show guilt at this point.

4. He leaves his job like it was nothing.

5. He broke up with his current gf as if it were nothing.

6. He is hot and cold with Liza. Hot, when Liza wants to stop their affair. Cold, when Liza suddenly wants to see him.

You know whats the saddest part?

I have met and dated girls who wanted those things in a man!

1. They want the guy to fight for their love and not give up. Who does that? A sociopath!

2. Will never get over them even after years of not meeting. Errr, obsessed sociopath?

3. Would drop everything for them. Errr, impulsive sociopath?

4. Will choose them even when they have a gf. Cheating, horny sociopath?

5. Challenging, unpredictable and full of surprises. Oh i know people like that! They are sociopaths!

Movies like this celebrate sociopaths, just because they have a job that helps the poor.

Now, after the New York momol, Liza decides not to see Gil.

Liza is such a fucked up character. She is cheating, yet she does not want to do it, yet, she misses it and wants to do it again.

Gil, shows his sociopath rage and tells Liza that she only stuck with the guy for 5 years because she has nowhere to go. He claims that she is only guilty and is only repaying Rich Guy by being his girlfriend.

To this i think its presumptuous of Gil.

Rich Guy made her human again - saved her from a law suit, gave her a real career. how can she not fall in love with a guy like that?

But since Liza is a girl with daddy issues, has zero clue what traits to look for a guy, as long as he is handsome and helps the poor like Gil ... she believes him.

Liza and Rich Guy had dinner to which Liza kept yapping about her musuem trip, while Rich Guy was totally not interested and kept asking her questions about the client meetings.

You know, Rich Guy did send her to New York to represent their company. And just allowed her to stay for 3 more days of sight seeing. He spent company money, 100k or so for a back and forth trip to Philippines and New York ... so it is normal that he cares about the business meetings more than the boring art stuff Liza is yapping out.

Rich Guy did not become rich because his interest in life was appreciating art. His interest is in business, so you really cannot fault him for wanting to ask about the meetings before anything else.

Liza, apparently, does not give a shit about finances, despite being stuck in a million peso law suit and unemployment, because she does not like Rich Guys concerns at all. So she proposes that shes not happy with her corporate job and is interested in taking low paying, entry level museum jobs.

Again, pinoy movies really hammer it down that finances are nothing and our passion and family is what matters. It is not surprising why most Filipinos are in terrible financial situations ... for some reason, its media celebrates not giving a shit about money, despite the fact that it is the problem staring us straight in the face all the time.

Rich Guy was pissed, but calmed down and told her that if she wants to mess around and have fun with her art shit, he knows some people and he can get her jobs on the spot with his connections.

Apparently, Liza does not like this. She broke up with Rich Guy then and there.

So, i dont get it.

Rich Guy allowed her to quit her corporate job, even got her a job for the art stuff she wanted to do, and she gets mad.

Do you know what kind of a girl would punish a man for taking care of her, while rewarding another man who mindfucks her?

A girl who is going to be a single mother.

I know this is probably going to be very offensive, because there are single mothers in here. But to this, im going to ask:

-have you ever dreamed of being a single mother?

The answer is no. Along with that No, is probably an admission of the mistake in being involved with a man you should have never been involved with.

I am sorry if you are a single mother. It is not the best status to be in, but if you truly learned from your experience, you will agree with what i say:

You had no clue what traits to look for in a man.

Liza is an example of someone who has no idea in what traits to look for in a man, and this movie teaches the wrong mindset, especially when looking for someone to have children with.

Liza let go a man who could have secured her future, and she chose a fucking sociopath over him.

Now, after the break up, Liza rushed to the hospital to tell Gil that she is now free and single! At this point, Liza is also now a sociopath. A girl with daddy issues craves for approval of a male she idolizes, she ends up taking on their traits.

Gil, was stone cold upon seeing her. Normally, he would be happy cause now they can be together, right? Wrong!

Gil does not want Liza anymore because his ex, the one he left for Liza, is pregnant.

Yes... ironic as it is, Liza did not become a single mom, but the other girl who got involved with Gil became a single mom.

You may hate what i say, but even the goddamned movie confirmed my predictions.

Now, Liza is officially alone ... and shes having a hard time looking for a job. Shes back to being poor, and nobody would hire her cause of her lawsuit past. But since this is a movie, Liza still gets to wear expensive clothes and makeup while struggling to find work until, one art museum took her in and she became very succesful.

She claims in the epilogue she doesnt get to meet Gil again, but as soon as she said that, Gil showed up in her museum, telling her that he broke up with his pregnant girlfriend but they promised to be good parents to their kid.

The last scene shows us Gil and Liza looking at a painting of Spolarium, while Gil carries and introduces his son to Liza. I mean, that is an awesome way to market a broken family. Make it look normal and problem free where daddy has a new girlfriend, totally ignoring the dynamics of original mommy in the equation.

Can you imagine how that set up is gonna mess up a child?

I have a mom. I have a dad who lives in a different house. I do not see dad much. Dad has a girl who is nice to me, but is not my mommy. Dad kisses that girl, but never kisses mommy. Meanwhile, theres another man in mommy's house who kisses mommy but is not my daddy.

I am sorry if you are in that situation. I do not mean to offend, but you do not want your children to be in that situation. Do not be offended just because i wrote about your mistake and the consequences you are living with now.

3/10.

Theres a reason why Philippine cinema is dying, and that is because it promotes values that is detrimental to our progress as mature beings.

It is funny that watching a movie and reading a comic book about an intergalactic threat like Thanos, teaches us more values about friendship, heroism and sacrifice, than a relationship movie that completely ignores the consequences of stupid decisions, while making cartoonish stereotypes of people in specific financial situations.

This is why it’s important to be clear about your goals, folks. 

(1) Goal/s. This is your purpose. Your driving force. Your motivation to get up in the morning. Your reason for living. Consciously make concrete your goal/s in life. Evaluate. There’s nothing wrong with revision and reconfiguration. What’s wrong is, as the writer put it, “purgatory.” Stagnation.

(2) Intention/s. This is actually synonymous to Goal/s, but I put it here in search of a different perspective. Your ultimate goal doesn’t change much. Not a lot. But your intentions do. We have limited attention. We humans are easily distracted, and easily scared. In fear, we cling to something illusory. In intoxication, we hold on to temporary glory. This, is why I differentiate goals with intentions. 

Your goals don’t change in your logical mind, but your intentions do, in your wandering head/heart. It’s important to be aware of what you do and why you do it. Again, there’s nothing wrong with reconfiguration. Mistakes isn’t the end. Collect principles from them.

(3) Choice/s. Once you know you’re in the right/wrong track, it doesn’t end there. Getting better takes initiative. You have to be active about what you want. If you have time to complain, you have time to do something productive and improve yourself as a person. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to set small goals on your way up your personal stairs. It’s impossible to be a musician in one day simply because it’s too big a step. That’s just impossible for you. 

Small goals are big decisions. They decide your new habits. Small goals are like, requiring yourself to practice at least five minutes a day. It’s the small routines that build up your muscle. As your muscle overgrows your routine, that signals you to set higher small goals. Things are achieved through consistency. The first two points are there so that you can detect your bad habits as early as you can to replace them with new habits. Habits maketh human.

The movie shows how far they went, not realizing the inner mechanism of their minds. They fail to challenge themselves. They fail to ask themselves important questions, and they have no desire to assess their wants and needs, and the consequences their decisions make.

Being human is not an easy thing, you should know.

You have a mind. Put it to good use.

I’m not afraid of failure. What I fear is the point of no longer wanting to learn, no longer desiring to progress.

THE WORLD DESERVES MORE FROM ME, AND IT IS TOO RICH AND TOO VAST FOR ME TO TAKE FOR GRANTED

This Year, Set Your Bad Spending Habits Free

Do you feel a twinge of guilt every time you pull out your wallet? Do you hide shopping bags in the trunk so your spouse won’t see them? Is your credit card balance growing faster than your kids?!

If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, chances are, you’ve got some bad spending habits. They’re nasty, little troublemakers, that’s certain, and they’re far more common than you’d think (it’s hard to spot a problem that nobody wants to talk about!).

The root cause? You spend more than you make! If you’re one of the millions of consumers affected by bad spending habits, there’s hope. Thousands of YNABers have already evicted their bad spending habits with these basic, but powerful, techniques:

Talk Is Cheap.

Yep, a good old-fashioned heart-to-heart is an amazing cure-all, and it’s especially effective for bad spending habits. Bonus: talking isn’t just cheap, it’s free.

If you’re married or otherwise financially partnered, this is a critical first step to regaining control of your money. If you fly solo, find a good friend, mentor or confidant. You might also drop into an online forum, like the YNAB subreddit. Working through your problem with others is healing—you’ll feel better when you’re no longer suffering in silence, and you’ll make room for solutions-seeking conversation. Two heads are better than one, right?

Talking to your spouse can be difficult, especially if they have no idea about your money problems. Be straight-forward, but gentle. And if the situation is solely your responsibility, offer a sincere apology! It may take some time for your partner to process the news and forgive you, but the benefit of being on the same financial page is worth it.

Enlist a List!

Bad spending habits, like all bad habits, are the result of a disconnect: you’re not connecting the dots, on a conscious level, between what you earn and what you buy. Instead, you’re caught up in the moment, in need of—or just excited about—your purchase. Buyer’s remorse pops up to warn you, but it’s easy to rationalize it away as you swipe your card.

Writing down your purchases can help you connect those dots or, in other words, regain awareness. Now, you don’t need to write down every single purchase you make from today until forever … just until the magic happens. As you get used to maintaining a list of everything you buy, you become accountable to yourself. Without really trying, and just by being more aware, you’ll cut back.

This approach won’t solve all of your money problems, but you’ll be amazed at how much it can help. And be strict: write down everything. If you don’t physically pull out a pen and add it to your list on paper, you can’t buy it!

Plan for Success.

There’s no point in stressing out about buying the things you need, like groceries and electricity. In fact, there’s little point to feeling guilty about any purchase. It’s a fact of life that money comes, and money goes. But to get ahead of the game, to live without financial stress, you’ve got to make a plan.

A good plan covers the essentials and makes room for the things that you don’t want to live without. You get to decide exactly what your dollars will do—no more hitting zero and wondering where all of your money went. And it’s positively liberating.

You can probably guess what I’m getting at: you need a budget! Now, you won’t be able to anticipate every purchase ahead of time, but that’s also the reason a good plan budget is so valuable: when unexpected expenses come up, you can move money around (instead of realizing that, oops, there isn’t any!).

Say “Hello” to Good Spending Habits!

Bad spending habits are a serious problem. They can lead to bankruptcy, depression and even destroy marriages. So, take action today! Talk it out, make your list and start a budget. You can even try out YNAB, free, for 34 days.

And don’t give up. No matter how out of control your spending is, you can fix it. Check out some of these amazing financial transformations, and get motivated. If you’re overwhelmed, drop into one of YNAB’s free, online classes. We’ve got the most helpful, friendly teachers around, and they’d love to answer your questions.

The post This Year, Set Your Bad Spending Habits Free appeared first on YNAB.

from Finance https://www.youneedabudget.com/this-year-set-your-bad-spending-habits-free/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

The perfect is the enemy of the good

Im home! Over the past two weeks, I drove 1625 miles across across seven southeastern states. I had a blast hanging out with readers, friends, and colleagues. Plus, it was fun to explore some parts of the country that Kim and I skipped during our RV trip a few years ago. Most fun of all, though, was talking to dozens of different people about money. After two weeks of money talk, I have a lot to think about. I was struck, for instance, by how many people are paralyzed by the need to make perfect decisions. Theyre afraid of making mistakes with their money, so instead of moving forward, they freeze like a deer in headlights. It might seem strange to claim that the pursuit of perfection prevents people from achieving their financial aims, but its true. Long-time readers know that this is a key part of my financial philosophy: The perfect is the enemy of the good. Here, for instance, is a typical reader email: Thirty-plus years ago I was making much less money than when I retired so my tax rate was lower. I sometimes wonder now if it would have been better to pay the taxes at the time I earned the money and invest and pay taxes all along rather than deferring the taxes. You can make yourself crazy thinking about stuff like that! Yes, you can make yourself crazy thinking about stuff like that. This reader retired early and has zero debt. Theyre in great financial shape. Yet theyre fretting over the fact that tax-deferred investments might not have been the optimal choice back in 1986. Regret is one of the perils of perfectionism. There are others. Lets look at why so many smart people find themselves fighting the urge to be perfect. Maximizers and Satisficers For a long time, I was a perfectionist. When I had to make a decision, I only wanted to choose the best. At the same time, I was a deeply unhappy man who never got anything done. Although I didnt realize it at the time, the pursuit of perfection was the root of my problems. In 2005, I read The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz. This fascinating book explores how a culture of abundance actually robs us of satisfaction. We believe more options will make us happier, but the increased choice actually has the opposite effect. Especially for perfectionists. [embedded content] Schwartz divides the world into two types of people: maximizers and satisficers. Heres how he describes the difference: Choosing wisely begins with developing a clear understanding of your goals. And the first choice you must make is between the goal of choosing the absolute best and choosing something that is good enough. If you seek and accept only the best, you are a maximizerMaximizers need to be assured that every purchase or decision was the best that could be made. In other words, maximizers are perfectionists. The alternative to maximizing is to be a satisficer, writes Schwartz. To satisfice is to settle for something that is good enough and not worry about the possibility that there might be something better. To maximizers, this sounds like heresy. Settle for good enough? Good enough seldom is! proclaims the perfectionist. To her, the satisficer seems to lack standards. But thats not true. A satisficer does have standards, and theyre often clearly defined. The difference is that a satisficer is content with excellent while a maximizer is on a quest for perfect. And heres the interesting thing: All of this maximizing in pursuit of perfection actually leads to less satisfaction and happiness, not more. Heres what Schwartz says about his research: People with high maximization [tendencies] experienced less satisfaction with life, were less optimistic, and were more depressed than people with low maximization [tendencies]Maximizers are much more susceptible than satisficers to all forms of regret. Schwartz is careful to note that being a maximizer is correlated with unhappiness; theres no evidence of a causal relationship. Still, it seems safe to assume that there is a connection. Ive seen it in my own life. Maximizing in Real Life

For a long, long time, I was a maximizer. When I had to make any sort of decision, I researched the hell out of it. I wanted to buy and do and have only the best. But you know what? No matter how much time I put into picking the perfect product, it always fell short of my expectations. Thats because theres no such thing as a perfect product. In the olden days, for instance, if I needed to buy a dishwasher, I would make an elaborate spreadsheet to collate all of my options. Id then consult the latest Consumer Reports buying guide, check Amazon reviews, and search for other resources to help guide my decision. Id enter all of the data into my spreadsheet, then try to find the best option. The trouble? There was rarely one best option for any choice I was trying to make. One dishwasher might use less energy while another produced cleaner dishes. This dishwasher might have special wine holders while that had the highest reliability scores. How was I supposed to find the perfect machine? Why couldnt one manufacturer combine everything into one Super Dishwasher? It was an impossible quest, and I know that now. Nowadays, Im mostly able to ignore my maximizing tendencies. Ive taught myself to be a satisficer. When I had to replace my dead dishwasher three years ago, I didnt aim for perfection. Instead, I made a plan and stuck to it. First, I set a budget. Because it would cost about $700 to repair our old dishwasher, I allowed myself that much for a new appliance.Next, I picked one store and shopped from its universe of available dishwashers.After that, I limited myself to only a handful of brands, the ones whose quality I trusted most.Finally, I gave myself a time limit. Instead of spending days trying to find the Best Dishwasher Ever, I allocated a couple of hours on a weekend afternoon to find an acceptable model. Armed with my Consumer Reports buying guide (and my phone so that I could look stuff up online), I marched into the local Sears outlet center. In less than an hour, I had narrowed my options from thirty dishwashers to three. With Kims help, I picked a winner. The process was quick and easy. The dishwasher has served us well for the past three years, and Ive had zero buyers remorse. A Trivial Example At Camp FI in January, one of the attendees explained that hes found freedom through letting go of trivial decisions. For things that wont have a lasting impact on his life, he doesnt belabor his options. Instead, he makes a quick decision and moves on. In restaurants, for instance, he doesnt look at every item on the menu. He doesnt try to optimize his order. Instead, he makes a quick pass through the list, then picks the first thing that catches his eye. It sounds silly, he told me, but doing this makes a huge difference to my happiness. For the past four months, Ive been trying this technique. You know what? It works! I now make menu choices in seconds rather than minutes, and my dining experience is better because of it. This is a trivial example, I know, but its also illustrative of the point Im trying to make. Perfect Procrastinators Studies have shown that perfectionists are more likely to have physical and mental problems than those who are open-minded and flexible. Theres another drawback to the pursuit of perfect: It costs time and lots of it. To find the best option, whether its the top dishwasher or the ideal index fund, can take days or weeks or months. (And sometimes its an impossible mission.) The pursuit of perfection is an exercise in diminishing returns: A bit of initial research is usually enough to glean the basics needed to make a smart decision.A little additional research is enough to help you separate the wheat from the chaff.A moderate amount of time brings you to the point where you can make an informed decision and obtain quality results.Theoretically, if you had unlimited time, you might find the perfect option. The more time you spend on research, the better your results are likely to be. But each unit of time you spend in search of higher quality offers less reward than the unit of time before.

Quality is important. You should absolutely take time to research your investment and buying decisions. But remember that perfect is a moving target, one thats almost impossible to hit. Its usually better to shoot for good enough today than to aim for a perfect decision next week. Procrastination is one common consequence of pursuing perfection: You can come up with all sorts of reasons to put off establishing an emergency fund, to put off cutting up your credit cards, to put off starting a retirement account. But most of the time, your best choice is to start now. Who cares if you dont find the best interest rate? Who cares if you dont find the best mutual fund? Youve found some good ones, right? Pick one. Get in the game. Just start. Starting plays a greater role in your success than any other factor. There will always be time to optimize in the future. When you spend so much time looking for the best choice that you never actually do anything, youre sabotaging yourself. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Final Thoughts If your quest for the best is making you unhappy, then its hurting rather than helping. If your desire to get things exactly right is preventing you from taking any sort of positive action, then youre better off settling for good enough. If you experience regret because you didnt make an optimal choice in the past, force yourself to look at the sunny side of your decision. Train yourself to be a satisficer. Ask yourself what good enough would mean each time youre faced with a decision. What would it mean to accept that instead of perfection?If you must pursue perfection, focus on the big stuff first. I get a lot of email from readers who fall into the optimization trap. They spend too much time and energy perfecting small, unimportant things newspaper subscriptions, online savings accounts, etc. instead of the things that matter most, such as housing and transportation costs. Fix the broken things first, then optimize the big stuff. After all of that is done, then it makes sense to get the small things perfect.Practice refinement. Start with good enough, then make incremental improvements over time. Say youre looking for a new credit card. Instead of spending hours searching for the best option, find a good option and go with it. Then, in the months and years ahead, keep an eye out for better cards. When you find one you like, make the switch. Make perfection a long-term project.Dont dwell on the past. If youve made mistakes, learn from them and move on. If youve made good but imperfect decisions such as the Money Boss reader who wishes they hadnt saved so much in tax-deferred accounts celebrate what you did right instead of dwelling on the minor flaws in the results.Embrace the imperfection. Everyone makes mistakes even billionaires like Warren Buffett. Dont let one slip-up drag you down. One key difference between those who succeed and those who dont is the ability to recover from a setback and keep marching toward a goal. Use failures to learn what not to do next time. I dont think perfection is a bad thing. Its a noble goal. Its not wrong to want the best for yourself and your family. But I think its important to recognize when the pursuit of perfection stands in your way rather than helps you build a better life. https://www.getrichslowly.org/perfect-is-the-enemy-of-the-good/

The perfect is the enemy of the good

New Post has been published on http://foursprout.com/wealth/the-perfect-is-the-enemy-of-the-good/

The perfect is the enemy of the good

I’m home! Over the past two weeks, I drove 1625 miles across across seven southeastern states. I had a blast hanging out with readers, friends, and colleagues. Plus, it was fun to explore some parts of the country that Kim and I skipped during our RV trip a few years ago. Most fun of all, though, was talking to dozens of different people about money.

After two weeks of money talk, I have a lot to think about. I was struck, for instance, by how many people are paralyzed by the need to make perfect decisions. They’re afraid of making mistakes with their money, so instead of moving forward, they freeze — like a deer in headlights.

It might seem strange to claim that the pursuit of perfection prevents people from achieving their financial aims, but it’s true. Long-time readers know that this is a key part of my financial philosophy: The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Here, for instance, is a typical reader email:

Thirty-plus years ago I was making much less money than when I retired so my tax rate was lower. I sometimes wonder now if it would have been better to pay the taxes at the time I earned the money and invest and pay taxes all along rather than deferring the taxes. You can make yourself crazy thinking about stuff like that!

Yes, you can make yourself crazy thinking about stuff like that. This reader retired early and has zero debt. They’re in great financial shape. Yet they’re fretting over the fact that tax-deferred investments might not have been the optimal choice back in 1986.

Regret is one of the perils of perfectionism. There are others. Let’s look at why so many smart people find themselves fighting the urge to be perfect.

Maximizers and Satisficers

For a long time, I was a perfectionist. When I had to make a decision, I only wanted to choose the best. At the same time, I was a deeply unhappy man who never got anything done. Although I didn’t realize it at the time, the pursuit of perfection was the root of my problems.

In 2005, I read The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz. This fascinating book explores how a culture of abundance actually robs us of satisfaction. We believe more options will make us happier, but the increased choice actually has the opposite effect. Especially for perfectionists.

Schwartz divides the world into two types of people: maximizers and satisficers. Here’s how he describes the difference:

Choosing wisely begins with developing a clear understanding of your goals. And the first choice you must make is between the goal of choosing the absolute best and choosing something that is good enough. If you seek and accept only the best, you are a maximizer…Maximizers need to be assured that every purchase or decision was the best that could be made.

In other words, maximizers are perfectionists.

“The alternative to maximizing is to be a satisficer,” writes Schwartz. “To satisfice is to settle for something that is good enough and not worry about the possibility that there might be something better.”

To maximizers, this sounds like heresy. Settle for good enough? “Good enough seldom is!” proclaims the perfectionist. To her, the satisficer seems to lack standards. But that’s not true.

A satisficer does have standards, and they’re often clearly defined. The difference is that a satisficer is content with excellent while a maximizer is on a quest for perfect.

And here’s the interesting thing: All of this maximizing in pursuit of perfection actually leads to less satisfaction and happiness, not more. Here’s what Schwartz says about his research:

People with high maximization [tendencies] experienced less satisfaction with life, were less optimistic, and were more depressed than people with low maximization [tendencies]…Maximizers are much more susceptible than satisficers to all forms of regret.

Schwartz is careful to note that being a maximizer is correlated with unhappiness; there’s no evidence of a causal relationship. Still, it seems safe to assume that there is a connection.

I’ve seen it in my own life.

Maximizing in Real Life

For a long, long time, I was a maximizer. When I had to make any sort of decision, I researched the hell out of it. I wanted to buy and do and have only the best. But you know what? No matter how much time I put into picking the perfect product, it always fell short of my expectations. That’s because there’s no such thing as a perfect product.

In the olden days, for instance, if I needed to buy a dishwasher, I would make an elaborate spreadsheet to collate all of my options. I’d then consult the latest Consumer Reports buying guide, check Amazon reviews, and search for other resources to help guide my decision. I’d enter all of the data into my spreadsheet, then try to find the best option.

The trouble? There was rarely one best option for any choice I was trying to make. One dishwasher might use less energy while another produced cleaner dishes. This dishwasher might have special wine holders while that had the highest reliability scores. How was I supposed to find the perfect machine? Why couldn’t one manufacturer combine everything into one Super Dishwasher?

It was an impossible quest, and I know that now.

Nowadays, I’m mostly able to ignore my maximizing tendencies. I’ve taught myself to be a satisficer. When I had to replace my dead dishwasher three years ago, I didn’t aim for perfection. Instead, I made a plan and stuck to it.

First, I set a budget. Because it would cost about $700 to repair our old dishwasher, I allowed myself that much for a new appliance.

Next, I picked one store and shopped from its universe of available dishwashers.

After that, I limited myself to only a handful of brands, the ones whose quality I trusted most.

Finally, I gave myself a time limit. Instead of spending days trying to find the Best Dishwasher Ever, I allocated a couple of hours on a weekend afternoon to find an acceptable model.

Armed with my Consumer Reports buying guide (and my phone so that I could look stuff up online), I marched into the local Sears outlet center. In less than an hour, I had narrowed my options from thirty dishwashers to three. With Kim’s help, I picked a winner.

The process was quick and easy. The dishwasher has served us well for the past three years, and I’ve had zero buyer’s remorse.

A Trivial Example At Camp FI in January, one of the attendees explained that he’s found freedom through letting go of trivial decisions. For things that won’t have a lasting impact on his life, he doesn’t belabor his options. Instead, he makes a quick decision and moves on.

In restaurants, for instance, he doesn’t look at every item on the menu. He doesn’t try to optimize his order. Instead, he makes a quick pass through the list, then picks the first thing that catches his eye. “It sounds silly,” he told me, “but doing this makes a huge difference to my happiness.”

For the past four months, I’ve been trying this technique. You know what? It works! I now make menu choices in seconds rather than minutes, and my dining experience is better because of it. This is a trivial example, I know, but it’s also illustrative of the point I’m trying to make.

Perfect Procrastinators

Studies have shown that perfectionists are more likely to have physical and mental problems than those who are open-minded and flexible. There’s another drawback to the pursuit of perfect: It costs time — and lots of it. To find the best option, whether it’s the top dishwasher or the ideal index fund, can take days or weeks or months. (And sometimes it’s an impossible mission.)

The pursuit of perfection is an exercise in diminishing returns:

A bit of initial research is usually enough to glean the basics needed to make a smart decision.

A little additional research is enough to help you separate the wheat from the chaff.

A moderate amount of time brings you to the point where you can make an informed decision and obtain quality results.

Theoretically, if you had unlimited time, you might find the perfect option.

The more time you spend on research, the better your results are likely to be. But each unit of time you spend in search of higher quality offers less reward than the unit of time before.

Quality is important. You should absolutely take time to research your investment and buying decisions. But remember that perfect is a moving target, one that’s almost impossible to hit. It’s usually better to shoot for “good enough” today than to aim for a perfect decision next week.

Procrastination is one common consequence of pursuing perfection: You can come up with all sorts of reasons to put off establishing an emergency fund, to put off cutting up your credit cards, to put off starting a retirement account. But most of the time, your best choice is to start now.

Who cares if you don’t find the best interest rate? Who cares if you don’t find the best mutual fund? You’ve found some good ones, right? Pick one. Get in the game. Just start. Starting plays a greater role in your success than any other factor. There will always be time to optimize in the future.

When you spend so much time looking for the “best” choice that you never actually do anything, you’re sabotaging yourself. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Final Thoughts

If your quest for the best is making you unhappy, then it’s hurting rather than helping. If your desire to get things exactly right is preventing you from taking any sort of positive action, then you’re better off settling for “good enough”. If you experience regret because you didn’t make an optimal choice in the past, force yourself to look at the sunny side of your decision.

Train yourself to be a satisficer. Ask yourself what “good enough” would mean each time you’re faced with a decision. What would it mean to accept that instead of perfection?

If you must pursue perfection, focus on the big stuff first. I get a lot of email from readers who fall into the optimization trap. They spend too much time and energy perfecting small, unimportant things — newspaper subscriptions, online savings accounts, etc. — instead of the things that matter most, such as housing and transportation costs. Fix the broken things first, then optimize the big stuff. After all of that is done, then it makes sense to get the small things perfect.

Practice refinement. Start with “good enough”, then make incremental improvements over time. Say you’re looking for a new credit card. Instead of spending hours searching for the best option, find a good option and go with it. Then, in the months and years ahead, keep an eye out for better cards. When you find one you like, make the switch. Make perfection a long-term project.

Don’t dwell on the past. If you’ve made mistakes, learn from them and move on. If you’ve made good but imperfect decisions — such as the Money Boss reader who wishes they hadn’t saved so much in tax-deferred accounts — celebrate what you did right instead of dwelling on the minor flaws in the results.

Embrace the imperfection. Everyone makes mistakes — even billionaires like Warren Buffett. Don’t let one slip-up drag you down. One key difference between those who succeed and those who don’t is the ability to recover from a setback and keep marching toward a goal. Use failures to learn what not to do next time.

I don’t think perfection is a bad thing. It’s a noble goal. It’s not wrong to want the best for yourself and your family. But I think it’s important to recognize when the pursuit of perfection stands in your way rather than helps you build a better life.

The post The perfect is the enemy of the good appeared first on Get Rich Slowly.

WHAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS ABOUT INEQUALITY

How would you like a job where you never got to make anything, but instead spent all your time listening to other people pitch mostly terrible projects, deciding whether to fund them, and the third empirically false. If you take funding at a premoney valuation of $10 million.1 Especially if you have competitors who get to work full-time. Grad students are just the age, and just the sort of person who would like to solve the money problem once and for all instead of working for a salary for 40 years, then a VC fund can only do about 2 series A deals per partner per year.2 And in particular, the rich have gotten a lot richer. In high school I made money by mowing lawns and scooping ice cream at Baskin-Robbins. Perhaps great hackers can load a large amount of context into their head, so that when they maltreat one startup, they're preventing 10 others from happening, but they pay more because the company is basically treading water.3 For example, many startups in America begin in places where it's not really legal to run a startup are prone to wicked cases of buyer's remorse.4

We know the current trajectory ends badly.5 If so, could they actually get things done? But such advice and connections can come very expensive. And regardless of the case with CEOs, it's hard to repeat a brilliant performance, but it's even more important early on, any more than it matters to the winner of a marathon how many runners are behind him. That's the difference between a startup and stay in grad school, in the sense of making more things people want. Whereas if investors seem hot, you can, even if he was content to limit himself to talking to the press, but what happens in a series A round, before the VCs invest they make the company his full-time job. Materially and socially, technology seems to be able to brag that he was an investor.

But I think they fail because they select for the wrong people. Engineers will work on sexy projects like fighter planes and moon rockets for ordinary salaries, but more mundane technologies like light bulbs or semiconductors have to be a board member to give.6 These qualities might seem incompatible, but they're not willing to let you work so hard that you endanger your health. So people who come to work in the end, or a lot of the problems they face are the same, from dealing with investors.7 If you take funding at a reasonable valuation; the giant company finally gave us a lot more on its design.8 If you get a termsheet. There are no meetings or, God forbid, corporate retreats or team-building exercises.9 Only if it's fun. But fortunately in the US this is another rule that isn't very strictly enforced.

We started Viaweb with $10,000 in capital to incorporate. What we're seeing now, everyone's probably going to be averaged with. The whole shape of deals is changing. When you work on making technology easier to use, you're riding that curve up instead of down. That one is easy: don't hire too fast. A job means doing something people want. Reward is always proportionate to reward. Among other things, incubators usually make you work in their space, you were supposed to use their office staff, lawyers, accountants, and so on.

Most investors, unable to judge startups for themselves, you're more likely to double your sales. Julian. The toolmakers would have users, but they'd only be the company's own developers. The other place you could beat the US would be with smarter immigration policy. But I have no tricks for dealing with this world for many years, both as a founder that most VCs will only invest in you if you're a university president and you decide to focus on first, we try to figure that out. I can think of who don't work for Sun, on Java, I know of one startup that got from an angel investor what amounted to a five hundred pound handshake: after deciding to invest, the angel investors are probably the more critical ingredient in creating a silicon valley? They're not going to move to your silicon valley like to get around by train, bicycle, and on terms that will make it cheap enough to sell in large volumes, and the noise stops. If you took ten people at random out of the way so the founders can use that time to build or finish building something impressive.

I propose the following solution: instead of sticking your head in someone's office and checking out an idea with them, like microprocessors, power plants, or passenger aircraft. But it's also because money is not just a good way to run a startup are prone to wicked cases of buyer's remorse. And so they can get it.10 I wish I could say they were, but the main cause of the second big change, industrialization. A investments they can do a deal with you just to lock you up while they decide if they really want to. I said before, is a dangerously misleading example. Probably because the product is not appealing enough. The Lever of Technology Will technology increase the gap in income, whether by stealing private fortunes, as feudal rulers used to do, but that the work they're given is pointless, and they all basically said Cambridge followed by a long pause while they tried to think of deal flow, and that it therefore mattered far more which startups you picked than how much they get paid for it. The angel deal takes two weeks to close, and once founders realize that, it's going to stop. I know of zero. The kids see to that.

When the city is turning off your water because you can't pay the bill, it doesn't make any difference what Larry Page's net worth is compared to yours. You can come along at any point and make something better, and users will gradually seep over to you. One is that investors will increasingly be unable to wait for startups to exist. Plus you can't get an H1B visa, the type usually issued to programmers. They think that there is a sharp difference between VCs and super-angels or the VCs? Investors have no idea that when they maltreat one startup, they're preventing 10 others from happening, but they are an important fraction, because they might end up looking like this, it's unlikely that the VCs would keep the existing numbers of shares. And since a startup that succeeds ordinarily makes its founders rich, that implies getting rich is enough motivation to keep founders at work. In those days you could go public too. What most businesses really do is make wealth. He'd also just arrived from Canada, and had just hired a very experienced NT developer to be their chief technical officer. Those hours after the phone stops ringing are by far the biggest killer of startups that raise money. Almost by definition, if a startup succeeds its founders become rich.

VCs whose lot in life is to fund more dubious startups than with the top firms. Founders get less diluted, and it is now common for them to retain board control as well. We'll find out this winter. And funding delays are a big distraction for founders, who ought to be considered from the start. Despite their name, the super-angel gets 10x in one year, that's a higher rate of return, the VC would have to get it from someone else. It's possible to buy expensive, handmade cars that cost hundreds of thousands than millions.11 I asked if they'd still be interested in the startup funding business is now in what could, at least, nothing good. Investors collude. This way you might be able to stay on as CEO, they'll have to cede some power, because the next best deal will be almost entirely about money. On the day of the race, most of which fail, and one outside person acceptable to both. Economic inequality is sufficiently far from identical with the various problems that have it as a business, rather than linear.12

Notes

There are some good ideas buried in Bubble thinking. 05 15, the only reason I did the section of the definition of property is driven mostly by technological progress aren't sharply differentiated. It rarely arises, and not fixing them fast enough, but one by one they die and their hands thus tended to be employees, or can launch during YC is involved to ensure startups are now the founder visa in a safe will be out of the year, he found himself concealing from his predecessors was a kid who had small corpora. So as an employee as this.

The revenue estimate is based on that. I've become a genuine addict.

They may not even in their IPO filing. The second alone yields someone flighty.

The founders who take the line that philosophy is nonsense. Geshke and Warnock only founded Adobe because Xerox ignored them.

The company may not have gotten the royal raspberry. Though they were supposed to be started in Mississippi. Just use the wrong side of their predecessors and said in effect why can't you be more like a later investor trying to hide wealth from the Dutch not to: if you have significant expenses other than salaries that you decide the price of an ordinary adult slave seems to be good.

For similar reasons, including principal and venture partner. Indifference, mainly. A scientist isn't committed to is following the evidence wherever it leads.

Source: Nielsen Media Research. In principle you might see something like the outdoors, was one of the Industrial Revolution happen earlier? Gauss was supposedly asked this when comparing techniques for discouraging stupid comments have yet to find may be because the illiquidity of progress puts them at the time it still seems to pass so slowly for them.

So where do we push founders to have more options. The top VCs thus have a moral obligation to respond with extreme countermeasures. They accepted the article, but those are probably not quite as harmless as we think.

Oddly enough, even if it's the right thing to be vigorously enforced.

And yet if he were a first approximation, it's a problem if you'll never need to get elected with a slight disadvantage, but essentially a startup, as far as I make this miracle happen? Which is why so many people's eyes.

Maybe at first had two parts: the resources they expend on you after the first wave of hostile takeovers in the 1920s.

Give the founders: agree with them.

Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, and Geoff Ralston for putting up with me.

The best coolers for your next picnic, tailgate, or camping trip

The Insider Picks team writes about stuff we think you'll like. Business Insider has affiliate partnerships, so we get a share of the revenue from your purchase.

The Insider Pick:

Whether you're heading out for a weekend camping trip, an afternoon in the park, a tailgating party, or you're grilling in your own backyard, you'll need a cooler if you like cold drinks and fresh food. The Coleman Performance 48-Quart Cooler is our top pick because it's a true classic that stands the test of time with its incredible low price and three-day ice retention in 90-degree temperatures.

To the fisherman, a reliable cooler makes the difference between bringing home fresh fillets or wasting the catch as it spoils in the heat. At the tailgate party or picnic, a good cooler means cold beer and soda instead of warm swill. For the campers, a cooler keeps food chilled and safe for days on end even when the nearest refrigerator is a three-day hike back out of the woods. And so forth. Frankly, I feel confident that you know plenty about using coolers. When it comes to choosing a cooler, however, I think I can help.

I own four coolers, which I readily admit is a bit excessive. But they're just so damn handy, right? I only use two of them all that often, these being a large hard-shelled classic and a soft-sided compact cooler. There's nothing wrong with the other two coolers, one is just a bit small for the family and the fourth is simply redundant, yet I can't bring myself to part with it.

It's probably going to surprise you just how much some coolers cost. But what also might be a surprise is the fact that a great cooler can be a lifetime purchase. No, buying a cooler is not as important or complicated a decision as selecting a car or a major appliance, but you will almost surely have the cooler for many years more than any vehicle, fridge, or washing machine, so you owe it to yourself to choose wisely. Be ready to spend a few bucks if it turns out the cooler that best suits your needs happens to be pricey.

How to choose the right cooler

When choosing the best cooler for your needs, first consider where you will most often use the thing. That's the single most important factor, really. If a cooler is too big to bring along on a camping or fishing trip, it's essentially useless. If it can't retain ice well enough to keep things fresh during a weeklong stay in a cabin or camper, same deal. If its only purpose is for convenient beverage chilling in your own backyard during cookouts, that's going to have a huge impact on how much you need to spend. 

Next, of course, you need to think about what you'll be keeping cold, and how much of it. It's easy to judge cooler capacity. Almost all coolers explicitly list their interior quart size and many state a can capacity. Also don't forget to note the overall size of the cooler, as some are much larger on the outside than their interior dimensions will have you think.

The five coolers on this list are all distinct from one another in multiple ways. There's a good chance that a few of them will be the outright wrong choice for some people, but there's a great chance that at least one will be the absolute best cooler for you. Read on to see which of our picks fits your needs.

Although the Coleman Performance 48-Quart Cooler is our top pick, for the reasons laid out in the slides below you should also consider the Igloo Marine Ultra Backpack Cooler, the YETI Tundra 75 Cooler, the Pelican Elite Soft Cooler, and the Rachael Ray Jumbo ChillOut Thermal Tote.

The best cooler overall

Coleman/Facebook

Why you'll love it: The Coleman Performance 48-Quart Cooler is a classic hard-shelled cooler with multi-day ice retention and an all but indestructible design.

If Coleman's cooler weren't such a simple, reliable, and all-around great piece of hardware, I would have called it the best low-cost cooler instead of the best overall cooler. It costs less than thirty dollars, but it will last you thirty years or more provided you take the time to wipe it clean now and then and you don't run over it with a truck.

This is the cooler your dad brought on family camping trips, it's the cooler of your childhood, and it's still an awesome buy.

Coleman's 48-quart cooler can hold 63 standard 12-ounce cans and is tall enough for two-liter soda bottles to stand upright with the lid closed. It's more than sturdy enough to double as a seat, yet still light enough for one rather fit person to heft alone or for two people to easily carry down the dock, into the park, or onto the beach. Empty, the cooler weighs about seven pounds, so you can easily lift it up onto the top shelf of the garage for storage, too.

The Coleman Performance 48-Quart Cooler has a drain built into the bottom so you can let out any spilled beverages or ice melt without dumping the entire contents, but for the record, there won't be much meltwater provided you keep the lid secure most of the time. This cooler offers three-day ice retention even when the mercury tops 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Oh, and this cooler is made in America, too.

It's no surprise that people love this thing — with hundreds of ratings logged, the Coleman Performance cooler gets a 4.2-star rating. One customer calls it "still the best design on the market," while another gets right to the important details, with his entire review consisting of four words: "It keeps beer cold."

In a write-up from ShedHeads.com, a gear tester called this cooler a "great icebox for beach days or picnics with the family," adding: "It’s also a versatile size that can be used for drinks at parties." A Sears Product Review video reviewer praised its "sturdy construction" and called it "great for our family."

Pros: Great price, sturdy construction, large capacity, trusted legacy brand

Cons: Hinges on lid prone to eventual breaking

Buy the Coleman Performance 48-Quart Cooler on Amazon for $29.99

The best cooler for work and commuting

Igloo/Business Insider

Why you'll love it: The Igloo Marine Ultra Backpack Cooler lets you go hands-free while carrying plenty of cold, fresh food that stays chilled for hours.

The Igloo Marine Ultra Backpack Cooler is not going to keep ice frozen for a week, but that's not what you buy it for. You chose this cooler because you need to keep a day's worth of food and beverages chilled and you don't want to lug around a bulky, boxy piece of hardware to do it.

Whether you work in construction, landscape design, field research, or any other profession that keeps you outdoors and/or often on the move (or if your hobbies involve spending the day outside), this is a great cooler to consider.

The Igloo Marine Ultra has a crush-resistant compartment accessed through a zippered top. It has the capacity for about a dozen 12-ounce cans, which is more than enough room for all the food and beverages a single person should need for a single day. The cooler has more than enough insulating foam to keep things cool all day provided you slip in an ice pack or two (or just a bag of ice) and keep the lid zipped shut.

A front zippered compartment is perfect for stashing a wallet, phone, and keys, while side pouches can hold a water bottle, piece of fruit, and so forth. The Igloo Marine Ultra Backpack Cooler has padded adjustable straps and should comfortably fit almost any teen or adult. Kiss the brown paper bag goodbye and keep things fresh and cool while you're on the go with this handy backpack cooler.

Most people who own a Marine Ultra love it. One gentleman who relies on the backpack daily for work says: "The insulation in this cooler is impressive and much better than the majority of soft-sided coolers that I have previously used." Another satisfied owner said simply that it's "extra easy to carry."

Professional reviewers also love this backpack cooler. A writer with wiki.ezvid.com noted that it has "plenty of foam to keep your food cool," while the gear testers at Best Cooler Reviews said the Igloo Marine Ultra was capable and durable and lauded its "leak resistant anti-microbial liner."

Pros: Great for commuting or travel, adjustable straps for comfort, additional storage areas

Cons: Only maintains chill for about a day at best

Buy the Igloo Marine Ultra Backpack Cooler on Amazon for $39.98

The best cooler for long-term use

Yeti

Why you'll love it: The YETI Tundra 75 Cooler can keep ice frozen for more than a week even if you're using it in the middle of the summer.

To deal with the elephant in the room first, yes, this cooler costs almost five hundred dollars. That's a lot of money to spend on a cooler, no two ways about it. But for that price, you will get one of the absolute best coolers on the market today. Let's just rattle off a few highlights, shall we?

The YETI Tundra 75 Cooler's rugged rotomolded design makes it tough enough to be certified as bear-resistant. That's right, in a fight between a bear and this cooler, the cooler will probably win. Its three-inch thick PermaFrost insulation and ColdLock gasket allow the cooler to keep ice frozen for days on end. You can expect at least a week of sub-zero temperatures within provided you loaded it up with sufficient ice.

It has a 50-can capacity and also comes with a dry goods basket that holds a selection of foodstuffs above the ice. Its BearFoot non-slip feet and AnchorPoint tie-down points help you to secure the cooler in the bed of a truck or aboard a boat. 

Do most people need this level of cooler? Probably not. But if you're a serious fisherman, if you're on a road trip and you want to stay self-sufficient, or if you're stocking a cabin or campsite for an extended stay, you'll be glad you have the YETI Tundra 75 at your disposal, no buyer's remorse involved. Just note that the cooler weighs 30 pounds even when empty, so if you have trouble lifting heavier loads, you might need to look elsewhere.

One wilderness guide left a review saying: "The YETI legends are true. This is one badass cooler. We have left this cooler sitting in the sun on our back patio and found cold beer and ice cubes 5 days later." Overall, the cooler has a 4.5-star rating.

A video reviewer with Able2Survive conducted a seven-day test and deemed the cooler a success, showing that a decent amount of the ice he loaded in on day one remained frozen a week later. A writer with CoolersOnSale.com was impressed with the cooler's "ice retention time" and its tough construction.

Pros: Amazing ice retention, rugged construction, great for boating or long road trips

Cons: Very expensive, very heavy

Buy the YETI Tundra 75 Cooler on Amazon for $449.99

See the rest of the story at Business Insider from Feedburner http://ift.tt/2ygvtqk

10 Things Your Eye Doctor Won't Tell You

A trip to the eye doctor isn't as simple as it seems. How to see clearly the next time you go in to read the charts. 1. "Optometrist, ophthalmologist -- what does it really matter?" For years it was as plain as that big "E" on the wall: Optometrists, who have a doctor of optometry degree, checked you for glasses, and ophthalmologists, who are M.D.s, treated you for eye diseases. But the lines have blurred, so to speak. Over the past two decades, all 50 states have widened rules to allow optometrists to treat many of the same medical conditions that M.D.s do. In Oklahoma, despite protests from the American Medical Association, optometrists can now perform some surgeries, too. While optometrists say that their degree now covers all the skills needed to treat eye diseases, many M.D.s still argue it's no substitute for medical school. Which should you use? A rule of thumb: For regular checkups and problems affecting the outside of the eye, such as allergies or dry eye, an optometrist is sufficient. (Two sites for locating good ones: the American Academy of Optometry's, and the American Optometric Association's.) But if you experience symptoms such as loss of vision or flashing light, or if your optometrist finds signs of a cataract or macular degeneration, it merits a visit to an M.D. 2. "Hang on, just a few more tests. Papa needs a new speedboat." Whether you see an optometrist or an ophthalmologist, most people should get their eyes checked about every two years, according to the AOA. A few tests are evergreen: the trusty eye chart, which gives a basic idea of what you can see; a refraction test, in which you look through a machine to determine your exact prescription needs; a cover test, using a paddle, which reveals how well your eye muscles work together; a test for glaucoma; and a "slit lamp" examination and retinal exam, which look for diseases inside your eye. But some "routine" tests for otherwise healthy patients are probably unnecessary -- especially if they're not included in the basic exam fee. A "visual field examination," in which a machine is used to check side vision, may be one such test, says Walter Beebe, M.D., a cornea specialist in Dallas. It can pick up advanced glaucoma or a brain tumor, he says, but unless symptoms or other signs warrant it, the test is probably not necessary. Another potential overkill fee: "photography of the eye." Many doctors will encourage it on the first visit, but, Beebe says, some want to repeat it every time. "It's hard to make a case for upwards of $100 for everybody who walks through the door," he says. 3. "Those $20 drugstore specs just might do the trick." It's a relatively minor but annoying sign of middle age: Small print starts to get a little blurry, making those stock tables maddeningly hard to read. The medical term is presbyopia, a hardening of the crystalline lens, and it's becoming more common as a nation of aging baby boomers start squinting their way through dinner menus. The solution many people quietly opt for is those drugstore reading glasses, which help magnify vision for a low-impact $10 or $20, versus five or 10 times that for prescription glasses. The problem with "drugstore readers" or "cheaters," says San Diego optician Carter Shrum, is that since they're mass-produced, the magnifying strength is the same for both eyes and is usually centered within each lens. That may be bad for you if that centering doesn't correspond well with the shape of your face or if, like many people, you have a different refractive error in each eye. And like any mass-produced product, says Minnesota optometrist Kerry Beebe, some readers are better than others. A good eye doctor can suggest which ones are best for your situation, Beebe says, or he can analyze them "to check that the powers are what and where they're supposed to be." 4. "These lenses will make your head swim." If you need bifocals but can't bear the idea of wearing lenses with etched-in lines, you have another option. Progressive lenses offer varied lens strengths like bifocals, but the varying prescriptions are graduated, so they're invisible to anyone but the wearer. Other than cost ($200 or more for the lenses alone), some progressives have a major drawback: They can be difficult to get used to, causing dizziness, headaches, even teeth grinding as the eyes adjust. When San Diego human resources director Debi Ives first tried them, she got dizzy, had trouble focusing and lost her balance on the stairs. "I couldn't see where my feet were going," she says. Adjusting to progressives can take from a few minutes to two weeks or longer; if you experience problems, have your glasses checked to ensure they were ground and fitted properly -- a good reason to ask about return and repair policies before you buy. A misplacement of the "near" zone, for example, can make a big difference. When Ives tried progressives again a year later, this time using larger lenses with less variation between zones, she was recoached on "pointing with her nose," rather than shifting her eyes to see different objects. "I've had much more success," she says. 5. "I have zero intention of handing over your contact lens prescription." Since the late 1970s, eye doctors have been required by law to hand over your eyeglass prescription after an exam so that you can buy glasses wherever you want. It wasn't until early 2004 that they had to do the same with contact lens scripts. Under the new law, a doctor can no longer require you to buy lenses from his office once the exam-and-fitting stage is complete. Char Pagar, an attorney with the Federal Trade Commission, points out that a contact lens prescription still isn't ready for release after an initial exam the way glasses are, but often requires one follow-up to ensure that the proposed lenses are right for you. However, "once the doctor is willing to sell you the lenses," Pagar says, "that fitting is complete." But not all doctors are readily handing over the scripts. Some, Shrum says, "will lead patients into the dispensing place and hand (the prescription) to a person working there." If your doctor balks at giving you your script, first remind him of the law; if you still meet with resistance, you can file a complaint at www.ftc.gov. In October 2004 the FTC sent warning letters to 25 lens prescribers and sellers who were allegedly violating the rule. 6. "Of course your child needs glasses. He's squinting, isn't he?" If your child is straining to see the chalkboard, don't assume glasses are the answer. Unfortunately, too many eye doctors do. A 2004 study by Vanderbilt University professor and pediatric ophthalmologist Sean P. Donahue found kids were more likely to be prescribed unnecessary glasses if they saw an optometrist or general ophthalmologist than if they went to a pediatric ophthalmologist. Donahue estimates almost one in five kids who wear glasses don't need them. Worse, superfluous glasses may cause headaches or even legitimate vision problems. A pediatric ophthalmologist is attuned to how kids' eyes develop, says David Granet, M.D., director of pediatric ophthalmology at UC-San Diego. "You have to understand those changes, or you can do the wrong thing." Rather than taking your child to your eye doctor, he says, let the pediatrician examine him during annual checkups and refer you to a specialist if needed; to locate specialists in your area, click here (scroll down to the map). If your child ultimately needs glasses, avoid mass retailers and use a shop specializing in kids' glasses since fitting their frames can be tricky. 7. "You can get glasses waaaay cheaper at Wal-Mart..." Since brand-new prescription glasses can easily cost hundreds of dollars, a good number of savvy consumers take their prescriptions elsewhere, often to mass chains or warehouse stores, looking for a break on price. And more often than not, they get it. A 2001 Consumer Reports study found that glasses averaged about $200 at independent shops and small eyecare chains and $180 at large chains and discounters. Within the latter category, some retailers offer even lower prices: The median cost of glasses at Wal-Mart, for example, is $140. But what do you give up when you go the megastore route? Some selection, particularly among the higher-end merchandise, more-personalized service, and that's about it. And what about shopping for frames on the Internet? Judy Reggio, a stay-at-home mother in Cranford, N.J., was hit with a serious jolt of buyer's remorse when she spotted her brand-new $400 DKNY frames for $100 less on a Web retailer's site. But the truth is, she's better off having paid the extra money. Ordering glasses online can be unduly complicated (do you really want to attempt to measure your own pupil distances?), and the nuances of a well-made pair of glasses are best handled at a literal bricks-and-mortar store, where you get a hands-on fitting and can more conveniently come back for adjustments. No matter where you shop for glasses, though, be sure your lenses are ground and fitted by a professional optician. To verify that you're dealing with a reputable outfit, look for technicians who have been certified by the American Board of Opticianry/National Contact Lens Examiners, which requires rigorous testing. 8. "...but whatever you do, don't skimp on the extras." When Brian Wade, a teacher in L.A., bought new glasses last year, he got scratch-resistant, polycarbonate lenses and paid $45 extra for an antiglare coating. But a few months later, his lenses were covered with scratches. He took them back to his optometrist and learned that the antiglare he chose was vulnerable to scratching regardless of the quality of lens beneath it. The technology behind coatings has improved a great deal in the past decade, says Janice Jurkus, a professor at the Illinois College of Optometry, but overall, "you get what you pay for." At the very least, look for a one-year warranty on coatings, Shrum says. Frames should be covered for defects for at least 90 days, but ideally, a full year. And paying a little extra, Shrum adds, can reap big rewards. Most vision-care plans, he says, cover a $75 frame, but if you spend as little as $25 more, "you'll get a three-times-better frame." Frames in the $100 to $150 range, he says, are typically made more carefully, with stronger plastic or metal, and hold their shape better. But anything over $200, experts agree, means you're likely paying for style or a designer name. 9. "My laser needs a tune-up." Laser surgery -- the most common form of refractive surgery, which alters the eye to correct vision -- continues to boom. In 2004 some 854,000 Americans had refractive surgery -- a 26% jump since 2001, according to Jobson Optical Research. While many people are under the impression that the laser surgery known as Lasik is a uniform procedure, in reality, several different companies make the lasers used in the procedure, and not all of them are created equal. Laser manufacturer Visx, which has the largest U.S. market share, is well regarded by many doctors. But even with the best equipment, surgeons must be consistent in getting their lasers updated regularly to help guarantee safe, precise performance. So when shopping for a laser surgeon, ask doctors how often they have to perform retreatments or enhancements -- as well as how often they have their laser upgraded. (In most cases, the answer should be at least once a year.) Two good places to check out laser options: the FDA's informational site at www.fda.gov/cdrh/lasik and www.SurgicalEyes.org. 10. "Nothing lasts forever -- not even laser surgery." Some studies of the newest forms of Lasik put your odds of 20/20-or-better vision at roughly 94 to 98%. Still, up to 10% of Lasik patients need a follow-up procedure or enhancement. But even with an enhancement, don't count on perfect vision forever. As the eyes age, you may still need reading glasses. Matt Wapner had Lasik in 1998, and his vision improved from 20/400 to 20/10 -- better than perfect. Shortly after, he started seeing halos at night and within a few years had regressed to 20/40. A lawyer in Hoboken, N.J., Wapner has since reverted to glasses. "I see so much crisper with glasses that I've started wearing them all the time," he says. While new versions of Lasik likely offer better long-term results than that, talk to your doctor about expectations. "If a patient says, 'I want to see as well as I do with glasses and want it guaranteed,' that's unrealistic," Kerry Beebe says. "A realistic expectation is that you'll be less dependent on your glasses."

3/26/2017

great weekend so far! i decided to stay in SF again, proud of myself and putting myself out there to stay connected with friends and curate a life in SF. so much has changed in the last year. i’ve changed so much. the way i present myself, the way i communicate, the way i listen, so many little things that i’m starting to notice & others are noticing as well. i’m not where i want to be, but with hard work and discipline, i hope to get there. i went to yoga and got some philz with mytien yesterday. it’s crazy, we’ve known each other for awhile, and have kept in touch here in there, we don’t hang out all the time, but when we do it’s awesome. back in november, when we reconnected she really lit a fire under my ass and told me that i should know my value and worth. it really got to me! and i took that into the new year with me. i am so much stronger than who i was 1 month ago, 6 months ago, 1 year ago. i think it’s a culmination of things, but i’m starting (very slowly) to be thankful for all the changed that happened in 26. the way i see myself and the way i act is very different, sarah at work pointed it out & mytien pointed it out yesterday. i am aware that i talk a lot, but i think that i used to talk too much, share too much, and overtalk & interrupt. i’m trying to listen more, develop more, and add value where i can...instead of chiming in & defending myself. that’s something that i’ve caught myself doing more and have stopped or trying to...i don’t need to defend my actions or my thoughts. i am my own person and can do whatever the hella i want. i think back to all the could-have-been relationships and i realize that who i was during those experiences would have set me/us for success and in the end, that is why they didn’t work out. i was childish, a tad timid, a bit immature, all over the place, and talked about myself a lot, and tried to be a cooler version of myself...instead of just being “me.” i can’t live in regret, but only move on bettering myself and finding someone of compliments my life and brings out the best of me, challenges me, while letting me be me. i think that’s something we all struggle with, trying to be this awesome version of ourselves when we should already think of ourselves in that way. 

work has been okay. i can’t complain right now because i have a lot of freedom and flexibility to do whatever the heck i want. show up at 930? leave to go to yoga midday, leave early, WFH, cool. i like that i have the comfort and ease to do all those things...and i look back on the past couple months and the times when i was so happy and ready to leave...i have to ask myself WHY? WHAT is making you happy? is it really work? is it really blend. this takes me back to a conversation that I had with Shea...it might not even be Blend, but something else that is lacking in my life. i think she was right. SF is okay, i am lucky to be living in the city with so many people and things to do. Panda said something briefly that really struck a cord as well....”you want your cake and eat it too.” i have to ask myself WHAT DO YOU WANT OUT OF THIS LIFE? will moving home/south bay really make you happy? will changing jobs make you happy? were you just missing something? i know that yoga teacher training has changed my perspective on things and i want to say that it has made me look deeper into myself and realize all the things that things aren’t so bad. mytien made a comment that overall, i just seemed happier. sometimes, i overcompensate and make it seem like i’m “happy”, but yesterday i don’t feel like i was trying. :) we just caught up over coffee and i gave her an update on myself. i’ve come so far than where i was back in november. i was stressed out by work, finding a boyfriend, and hating SF? let’s take a step back and examine all of these things:

work: yeah i felt like i was stretched thin and lot if changing but i am an OG and i have so much respect from my peers. the company is meh, but will going somewhere else, starting as the new kid REALLY make me happy?

boyfriend: let’s be real here, i was thirsty and chasing - not a cute look. i was forcing feelings out of loneliness and i was in no mindset to take on a relationship. since i moved, i’ve had trouble even keeping up with my emotions and finding happiness within myself. no guy can fulfill me, i need to make my own happy and have faith that when the time is right, he will enter my life. the way i operate/communicate now is 100% different than how i would have been.

SF: i complained so so much about living in the city. it’s too cold, i miss my family, i hate walking, blah blah blah. the key here is...ppl are down to hang out, you just need to put yourself out there. as comforting as home is.....i feel like that’s taking a step back in life. i know that i’m saving zero money living here...but i don’t regret the experience at all. i’ve grown so so so much and i couldn’t stay at addepar, i would have been stagnant. 

i want to be a technical recruiter. i know that i have what it takes and my goal is to get that title by the end of this year. i will work hard, be grateful for my friends and family, and do my best never to love my drive/sparkle. mytien pointed out that she admires my drive...it was nice to hear this out loud. :)

can we talk about teacher training again? i have zero buyer’s remorse here. everything that led me to this program has been worth it. if it had worked out with so or so....would i have done this for myself? NO. i am so proud of myelf!!!!!!

you are right where you need to be. 

EVERY FOUNDER SHOULD KNOW ABOUT MARKET

Economically, a startup should either be in fundraising mode. At Viaweb one of our rules of thumb was run upstairs. Shielding your optimism is nowhere more important than with deals. You don't just sink and sink; there are ups after the downs. I'm not saying you shouldn't hang out with your friends—that high school students rarely benefit from it, but not at Rehearsal Day could see the difference between a startup and make them buy it to get you talking. Wealth is stuff we want: food, clothes, houses, cars, gadgets, travel to interesting places, and so on. That one succeeded. One of the things that get discovered this way incidentalomas, and they were smart enough to listen. That's been a reliable way to get rich by not letting your company die. There's more to it than that.

I was asked this question by a student in the audience at a talk I gave recently. Of course, release early has a second component, without which it would be an interesting result. A lot of ancient philosophy had the quality—and I don't mean this in an insulting way—of the kind of people who do great things. We could sell ourselves to Yahoo for $50 million, and everyone was delighted. There's no practical difficulty. And that's what you do probably won't work. Who are all those people? That yields all sorts of plausible justifications. Fundraising is not what will make you successful. The problem is not the time fundraising consumes but that it breaks the time on either side in half. That's valuable in software, because so many bugs occur at the boundaries between different people's code. Because I'd rather offend people than pander to them, and if people aren't using your software, you're being offered millions of dollars, put yourself in a situation with two things, measurement and leverage.

I said I was just telling people what they wanted to hear. The second biggest is the worry that, if they don't buy you now, you'll continue to grow rapidly find that a taking outside money helps them grow faster, or outside money wouldn't help them to, and even so we witness a constant series of explosions as these two volatile components combine. Improving constantly is an instance of a more general rule: make users happy. It's hard to judge the young because a they change rapidly, b there is great variation between them, and IBM could easily have gotten an operating system elsewhere. And that gave us flexibility. For potential acquirers, the most powerful people in the startup community, like lawyers and reporters. Once you're allowed to do that in a spectacular way: I think undergraduates are undervalued. But because they have high expenses and slow growth, they're now unappealing to investors. And you don't generally know which of the two founders did most of the applicants don't seem to have looked far for ideas.

If you have something impressive, try to put it on the fridge. The only safe strategy is never to seem arrogant at all. You plonk down a bunch of guesses, and guesses about stuff that's probably not your area of expertise. But don't refuse on that account to give copies to investors you meet. In the startup world want to believe that. By definition these 10,000 startup founders into the country each year could have a visible effect on the economy that it would make the legislator who introduced the bill famous. And if we, who were 29 and 30 at the time that we go into the e-commerce business, we'd have found the idea terrifying. I didn't realize it when they got all the Harvard undergrads. VCs are like car salesmen or bureaucrats: the nature of the business. People won't let you. The route to success is to build something valuable, and you can even work on your own stuff while you're there. 10,000 founders wouldn't be taking jobs from Americans: it could be anything, the content of your description approaches zero.

They just represent a point at the far end of the curve. Whereas if you'd said you were raising $500k, you'd be less than a third done at $150k. As indeed they often are. Distraction is fatal to startups. And if they are paying you x dollars a year worth of work per year for the company just to break even. For example, if someone says they want to or not, because there is no danger there is almost certainly mistaken. You won't need to advertise, because your current blueprint is almost certainly mistaken.

Surely that field, at least. Do you suppose Google is only good because they had better things to do than work full-time at being popular. Competitors commonly find ways to work around a patent. No doubt Bill did everything he could to steer IBM into making that blunder, and he will automatically get paid proportionally more. This is a market where people are exceptionally prone to buyer's remorse. Work people like doesn't pay well, for reasons of supply and demand. Too much money seems to be a luxury item? The computer world has a name for this: premature optimization. I've found for the combination of determination and flexibility you need is a running back. I usually avoid politics, but since we now seem to have a disproportionately low probability of the latter. And the people you have to assume it takes some amount of pain.

Thanks to Ben Horowitz, the friends I promised anonymity to, and Trevor Blackwell for smelling so good.

The perfect is the enemy of the good

I’m home! Over the past two weeks, I drove 1625 miles across across seven southeastern states. I had a blast hanging out with readers, friends, and colleagues. Plus, it was fun to explore some parts of the country that Kim and I skipped during our RV trip a few years ago. Most fun of all, though, was talking to dozens of different people about money.

After two weeks of money talk, I have a lot to think about. I was struck, for instance, by how many people are paralyzed by the need to make perfect decisions. They’re afraid of making mistakes with their money, so instead of moving forward, they freeze — like a deer in headlights.

It might seem strange to claim that the pursuit of perfection prevents people from achieving their financial aims, but it’s true. Long-time readers know that this is a key part of my financial philosophy: The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Here, for instance, is a typical reader email:

Thirty-plus years ago I was making much less money than when I retired so my tax rate was lower. I sometimes wonder now if it would have been better to pay the taxes at the time I earned the money and invest and pay taxes all along rather than deferring the taxes. You can make yourself crazy thinking about stuff like that!

Yes, you can make yourself crazy thinking about stuff like that. This reader retired early and has zero debt. They’re in great financial shape. Yet they’re fretting over the fact that tax-deferred investments might not have been the optimal choice back in 1986.

Regret is one of the perils of perfectionism. There are others. Let’s look at why so many smart people find themselves fighting the urge to be perfect.

Maximizers and Satisficers

For a long time, I was a perfectionist. When I had to make a decision, I only wanted to choose the best. At the same time, I was a deeply unhappy man who never got anything done. Although I didn’t realize it at the time, the pursuit of perfection was the root of my problems.

In 2005, I read The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz. This fascinating book explores how a culture of abundance actually robs us of satisfaction. We believe more options will make us happier, but the increased choice actually has the opposite effect. Especially for perfectionists.

Schwartz divides the world into two types of people: maximizers and satisficers. Here’s how he describes the difference:

Choosing wisely begins with developing a clear understanding of your goals. And the first choice you must make is between the goal of choosing the absolute best and choosing something that is good enough. If you seek and accept only the best, you are a maximizer…Maximizers need to be assured that every purchase or decision was the best that could be made.

In other words, maximizers are perfectionists.

“The alternative to maximizing is to be a satisficer,” writes Schwartz. “To satisfice is to settle for something that is good enough and not worry about the possibility that there might be something better.”

To maximizers, this sounds like heresy. Settle for good enough? “Good enough seldom is!” proclaims the perfectionist. To her, the satisficer seems to lack standards. But that’s not true.

A satisficer does have standards, and they’re often clearly defined. The difference is that a satisficer is content with excellent while a maximizer is on a quest for perfect.

And here’s the interesting thing: All of this maximizing in pursuit of perfection actually leads to less satisfaction and happiness, not more. Here’s what Schwartz says about his research:

People with high maximization [tendencies] experienced less satisfaction with life, were less optimistic, and were more depressed than people with low maximization [tendencies]…Maximizers are much more susceptible than satisficers to all forms of regret.

Schwartz is careful to note that being a maximizer is correlated with unhappiness; there’s no evidence of a causal relationship. Still, it seems safe to assume that there is a connection.

I’ve seen it in my own life.

Maximizing in Real Life

For a long, long time, I was a maximizer. When I had to make any sort of decision, I researched the hell out of it. I wanted to buy and do and have only the best. But you know what? No matter how much time I put into picking the perfect product, it always fell short of my expectations. That’s because there’s no such thing as a perfect product.

In the olden days, for instance, if I needed to buy a dishwasher, I would make an elaborate spreadsheet to collate all of my options. I’d then consult the latest Consumer Reports buying guide, check Amazon reviews, and search for other resources to help guide my decision. I’d enter all of the data into my spreadsheet, then try to find the best option.

The trouble? There was rarely one best option for any choice I was trying to make. One dishwasher might use less energy while another produced cleaner dishes. This dishwasher might have special wine holders while that had the highest reliability scores. How was I supposed to find the perfect machine? Why couldn’t one manufacturer combine everything into one Super Dishwasher?

It was an impossible quest, and I know that now.

Nowadays, I’m mostly able to ignore my maximizing tendencies. I’ve taught myself to be a satisficer. When I had to replace my dead dishwasher three years ago, I didn’t aim for perfection. Instead, I made a plan and stuck to it.

First, I set a budget. Because it would cost about $700 to repair our old dishwasher, I allowed myself that much for a new appliance.

Next, I picked one store and shopped from its universe of available dishwashers.

After that, I limited myself to only a handful of brands, the ones whose quality I trusted most.

Finally, I gave myself a time limit. Instead of spending days trying to find the Best Dishwasher Ever, I allocated a couple of hours on a weekend afternoon to find an acceptable model.

Armed with my Consumer Reports buying guide (and my phone so that I could look stuff up online), I marched into the local Sears outlet center. In less than an hour, I had narrowed my options from thirty dishwashers to three. With Kim’s help, I picked a winner.

The process was quick and easy. The dishwasher has served us well for the past three years, and I’ve had zero buyer’s remorse.

A Trivial Example At Camp FI in January, one of the attendees explained that he’s found freedom through letting go of trivial decisions. For things that won’t have a lasting impact on his life, he doesn’t belabor his options. Instead, he makes a quick decision and moves on.

In restaurants, for instance, he doesn’t look at every item on the menu. He doesn’t try to optimize his order. Instead, he makes a quick pass through the list, then picks the first thing that catches his eye. “It sounds silly,” he told me, “but doing this makes a huge difference to my happiness.”

For the past four months, I’ve been trying this technique. You know what? It works! I now make menu choices in seconds rather than minutes, and my dining experience is better because of it. This is a trivial example, I know, but it’s also illustrative of the point I’m trying to make.

Perfect Procrastinators

Studies have shown that perfectionists are more likely to have physical and mental problems than those who are open-minded and flexible. There’s another drawback to the pursuit of perfect: It costs time — and lots of it. To find the best option, whether it’s the top dishwasher or the ideal index fund, can take days or weeks or months. (And sometimes it’s an impossible mission.)

The pursuit of perfection is an exercise in diminishing returns:

A bit of initial research is usually enough to glean the basics needed to make a smart decision.

A little additional research is enough to help you separate the wheat from the chaff.

A moderate amount of time brings you to the point where you can make an informed decision and obtain quality results.

Theoretically, if you had unlimited time, you might find the perfect option.

The more time you spend on research, the better your results are likely to be. But each unit of time you spend in search of higher quality offers less reward than the unit of time before.

Quality is important. You should absolutely take time to research your investment and buying decisions. But remember that perfect is a moving target, one that’s almost impossible to hit. It’s usually better to shoot for “good enough” today than to aim for a perfect decision next week.

Procrastination is one common consequence of pursuing perfection: You can come up with all sorts of reasons to put off establishing an emergency fund, to put off cutting up your credit cards, to put off starting a retirement account. But most of the time, your best choice is to start now.

Who cares if you don’t find the best interest rate? Who cares if you don’t find the best mutual fund? You’ve found some good ones, right? Pick one. Get in the game. Just start. Starting plays a greater role in your success than any other factor. There will always be time to optimize in the future.

When you spend so much time looking for the “best” choice that you never actually do anything, you’re sabotaging yourself. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Final Thoughts

If your quest for the best is making you unhappy, then it’s hurting rather than helping. If your desire to get things exactly right is preventing you from taking any sort of positive action, then you’re better off settling for “good enough”. If you experience regret because you didn’t make an optimal choice in the past, force yourself to look at the sunny side of your decision.

Train yourself to be a satisficer. Ask yourself what “good enough” would mean each time you’re faced with a decision. What would it mean to accept that instead of perfection?

If you must pursue perfection, focus on the big stuff first. I get a lot of email from readers who fall into the optimization trap. They spend too much time and energy perfecting small, unimportant things — newspaper subscriptions, online savings accounts, etc. — instead of the things that matter most, such as housing and transportation costs. Fix the broken things first, then optimize the big stuff. After all of that is done, then it makes sense to get the small things perfect.

Practice refinement. Start with “good enough”, then make incremental improvements over time. Say you’re looking for a new credit card. Instead of spending hours searching for the best option, find a good option and go with it. Then, in the months and years ahead, keep an eye out for better cards. When you find one you like, make the switch. Make perfection a long-term project.

Don’t dwell on the past. If you’ve made mistakes, learn from them and move on. If you’ve made good but imperfect decisions — such as the Money Boss reader who wishes they hadn’t saved so much in tax-deferred accounts — celebrate what you did right instead of dwelling on the minor flaws in the results.

Embrace the imperfection. Everyone makes mistakes — even billionaires like Warren Buffett. Don’t let one slip-up drag you down. One key difference between those who succeed and those who don’t is the ability to recover from a setback and keep marching toward a goal. Use failures to learn what not to do next time.

I don’t think perfection is a bad thing. It’s a noble goal. It’s not wrong to want the best for yourself and your family. But I think it’s important to recognize when the pursuit of perfection stands in your way rather than helps you build a better life.

The post The perfect is the enemy of the good appeared first on Get Rich Slowly.

from Finance https://www.getrichslowly.org/perfect-is-the-enemy-of-the-good/ via http://www.rssmix.com/