• Yigit Konur's Curation

  • Auteur(s): Yigit Konur
  • Podcast

Yigit Konur's Curation

Auteur(s): Yigit Konur
Écouter gratuitement

  • Résumé

  • Hey, I am Yigit Konur. I take interesting written content about technology, startups, and artificial intelligence, give it a slight makeover to fit the podcast format, and then let AI take it from there. The result? A narration so meticulous, you might mistake it for a human voice. Let's face it, most of us don't have the time or patience for lengthy articles anymore. But when they're delivered in a clear and engaging voice, we can listen while cooking dinner or doing the dishes, can't we? That's the essence of this project - curating valuable historical and contemporary insights about technology and AI, making your multitasking a bit more enlightening. Consider it a sophisticated blend of technology and convenience. All the AI resources for this project are provided by Wope, my startup, and we're leveraging the resources we've created there to make this happen 🙏 If your content has been featured here and you firmly believe it needs to be removed or edited, please don't hesitate to send me a direct message on my profile at X. I assure you, I will attend to it promptly.
    All copyright for the narrated content belongs to the content owners. My role is simply to take the initiative to diversify the medium of the content and increase its accessibility. If you wish, you can request to have your content removed by writing to me at X.com/yigitkonur. I'm not pursuing any profit, my sole aim is to provide benefit.
    Voir plus Voir moins
Gestion et leadership Économie
Voir plus Voir moins
activate_Holiday_promo_in_buybox_DT_T2
Épisodes
  • You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss - The Notion of Having a Boss: The Unnaturalness of Working in Large Corporations

    You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss - The Notion of Having a Boss: The Unnaturalness of Working in Large Corporations
    Nov 12 2023
    "This article written by Paul Graham in 2008 discusses how working in large companies is at odds with human nature. It argues that people are not adapted to working in large groups and that this situation restricts our mental freedom. It suggests that working for yourself and working in small groups is more suited to human nature. According to Graham, working in large companies stifles individual initiative and creativity. He asserts that working independently provides more freedom and opportunities to do new things. Therefore, he argues that working in a small company or starting your own venture is more valuable than working in a large company.---# You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss (The Notion of Having a Boss: The Unnaturalness of Working in Large Corporations)March 2008, rev. June 2008Technology tends to separate normal from natural. Our bodies weren't designed to eat the foods that people in rich countries eat, or to get so little exercise. There may be a similar problem with the way we work: a normal job may be as bad for us intellectually as white flour or sugar is for us physically.> ""...the mere consciousness of an engagement will sometimes worry a whole day."" - Charles DickensI began to suspect this after spending several years working with startup founders. I've now worked with over 200 of them, and I've noticed a definite difference between programmers working on their own startups and those working for large organizations. I wouldn't say founders seem happier, necessarily; starting a startup can be very stressful. Maybe the best way to put it is to say that they're happier in the sense that your body is happier during a long run than sitting on a sofa eating doughnuts.Though they're statistically abnormal, startup founders seem to be working in a way that's more natural for humans.I was in Africa last year and saw a lot of animals in the wild that I'd only seen in zoos before. It was remarkable how different they seemed. Particularly lions. Lions in the wild seem about ten times more alive. They're like different animals. I suspect that working for oneself feels better to humans in much the same way that living in the wild must feel better to a wide-ranging predator like a lion. Life in a zoo is easier, but it isn't the life they were designed for.**Trees**What's so unnatural about working for a big company? The root of the problem is that humans weren't meant to work in such large groups.Another thing you notice when you see animals in the wild is that each species thrives in groups of a certain size. A herd of impalas might have 100 adults; baboons maybe 20; lions rarely 10. Humans also seem designed to work in groups, and what I've read about hunter-gatherers accords with research on organizations and my own experience to suggest roughly what the ideal size is: groups of 8 work well; by 20 they're getting hard to manage; and a group of 50 is really unwieldy. [1]Whatever the upper limit is, we are clearly not meant to work in groups of several hundred. And yet—for reasons having more to do with technology than human nature—a great many people work for companies with hundreds or thousands of employees.Companies know groups that large wouldn't work, so they divide themselves into units small enough to work together. But to coordinate these they have to introduce something new: bosses.These smaller groups are always arranged in a tree structure. Your boss is the point where your group attaches to the tree. But when you use this trick for dividing a large group into smaller ones, something strange happens that I've never heard anyone mention explicitly. In the group one level up from yours, your boss represents your entire group. A group of 10 managers is not merely a group of 10 people working together in the usual way. It's really a group of groups. Which means for a group of 10 managers to work together as if they were simply a group of 10 individuals, the group working for each manager would have to work as if they were a single person—the workers and manager would each share only one person's worth of freedom between them.In practice a group of people are never able to act as if they were one person. But in a large organization divided into groups in this way, the pressure is always in that direction. Each group tries its best to work as if it were the small group of individuals that humans were designed to work in. That was the point of creating it. And when you propagate that constraint, the result is that each person gets freedom of action in inverse proportion to the size of the entire tree. [2]Anyone who's worked for a large organization has felt this. You can feel the difference between working for a company with 100 employees and one with 10,000, even if your group has only 10 people.**Corn Syrup**A group of 10 people within a large organization is a kind of fake tribe. The number of people you interact with is about right. But something is missing: individual initiative...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    17 min
  • Writing, Briefly - Concise and Effective Writing Techniques

    Writing, Briefly - Concise and Effective Writing Techniques
    Nov 12 2023

    "This article written by Paul Graham in 2005 discusses the importance of good writing and how to improve one's writing skills. It points out that writing not only conveys ideas but also generates them. It emphasizes that being a writer requires constantly rewriting your work, eliminating anything unnecessary, writing in a conversational style, and recognizing and correcting bad writing. It also provides tips on self-confidence, writing for the general reader rather than the careful reader, and correcting your mistakes. This is a valuable guide for anyone who enjoys writing or wants to improve their writing skills.

    ---

    # Writing, Briefly (Concise and Effective Writing Techniques)

    March 2005

    _(In the process of answering an email, I accidentally wrote a tiny essay about writing. I usually spend weeks on an essay. This one took 67 minutes—23 of writing, and 44 of rewriting.)_

    I think it's far more important to write well than most people realize. Writing doesn't just communicate ideas; it generates them. If you're bad at writing and don't like to do it, you'll miss out on most of the ideas writing would have generated.

    As for how to write well, here's the short version: Write a bad version 1 as fast as you can; rewrite it over and over; cut out everything unnecessary; write in a conversational tone; develop a nose for bad writing, so you can see and fix it in yours; imitate writers you like; if you can't get started, tell someone what you plan to write about, then write down what you said; expect 80% of the ideas in an essay to happen after you start writing it, and 50% of those you start with to be wrong; be confident enough to cut; have friends you trust read your stuff and tell you which bits are confusing or drag; don't(always) make detailed outlines; mull ideas over for a few days before writing; carry a small notebook or scrap paper with you; start writing when you think of the first sentence; if a deadline forces you to start before that, just say the most important sentence first; write about stuff you like; don't try to sound impressive; don't hesitate to change the topic on the fly; use footnotes to contain digressions; use anaphora to knit sentences together; read your essays out loud to see(a) where you stumble over awkward phrases and(b) which bits are boring(the paragraphs you dread reading); try to tell the reader something new and useful; work in fairly big quanta of time; when you restart, begin by rereading what you have so far; when you finish, leave yourself something easy to start with; accumulate notes for topics you plan to cover at the bottom of the file; don't feel obliged to cover any of them; write for a reader who won't read the essay as carefully as you do, just as pop songs are designed to sound ok on crappy car radios; if you say anything mistaken, fix it immediately; ask friends which sentence you'll regret most; go back and tone down harsh remarks; publish stuff online, because an audience makes you write more, and thus generate more ideas; print out drafts instead of just looking at them on the screen; use simple, germanic words; learn to distinguish surprises from digressions; learn to recognize the approach of an ending, and when one appears, grab it.

    ---

    Relevant Keywords: writing tips, importance of writing, writing process, improving writing skills, writing for idea generation, conversational writing, rewriting and editing, writing and creativity, writing for an online audience, effective writing techniques"
    Voir plus Voir moins
    4 min
  • Writing and Speaking - The Art of Writing and Speaking: Exploring the Relationship Between Ideas and Communication

    Writing and Speaking - The Art of Writing and Speaking: Exploring the Relationship Between Ideas and Communication
    Nov 12 2023
    "This article written by Paul Graham in 2012 highlights the differences between being a good speaker and a good writer. Graham points out that speaking skills usually contain fewer ideas compared to writing skills and that being a good speaker is often about the ability to impact and motivate listeners. He also states that speeches are generally superior to written texts in terms of personal interaction and motivation. This article is a must-read for those who wish to explore these striking dynamics between speaking and writing.---# Writing and Speaking (The Art of Writing and Speaking: Exploring the Relationship Between Ideas and Communication)Mart 2012I'm not a very good speaker. I say ""um"" a lot. Sometimes I have to pause when I lose my train of thought. I wish I were a better speaker. But I don't wish I were a better speaker like I wish I were a better writer. What I really want is to have good ideas, and that's a much bigger part of being a good writer than being a good speaker.Having good ideas is most of writing well. If you know what you're talking about, you can say it in the plainest words and you'll be perceived as having a good style. With speaking it's the opposite: having good ideas is an alarmingly small component of being a good speaker.I first noticed this at a conference several years ago. There was another speaker who was much better than me. He had all of us roaring with laughter. I seemed awkward and halting by comparison. Afterward I put my talk online like I usually do. As I was doing it I tried to imagine what a transcript of the other guy's talk would be like, and it was only then I realized he hadn't said very much.Maybe this would have been obvious to someone who knew more about speaking, but it was a revelation to me how much less ideas mattered in speaking than writing. [1]A few years later I heard a talk by someone who was not merely a better speaker than me, but a famous speaker. Boy was he good. So I decided I'd pay close attention to what he said, to learn how he did it. After about ten sentences I found myself thinking ""I don't want to be a good speaker.""Being a really good speaker is not merely orthogonal to having good ideas, but in many ways pushes you in the opposite direction. For example, when I give a talk, I usually write it out beforehand. I know that's a mistake; I know delivering a prewritten talk makes it harder to engage with an audience. The way to get the attention of an audience is to give them your full attention, and when you're delivering a prewritten talk, your attention is always divided between the audience and the talk — even if you've memorized it. If you want to engage an audience, it's better to start with no more than an outline of what you want to say and ad lib the individual sentences. But if you do that, you might spend no more time thinking about each sentence than it takes to say it. [2] Occasionally the stimulation of talking to a live audience makes you think of new things, but in general this is not going to generate ideas as well as writing does, where you can spend as long on each sentence as you want.If you rehearse a prewritten speech enough, you can get asymptotically close to the sort of engagement you get when speaking ad lib. Actors do. But here again there's a tradeoff between smoothness and ideas. All the time you spend practicing a talk, you could instead spend making it better. Actors don't face that temptation, except in the rare cases where they've written the script, but any speaker does. Before I give a talk I can usually be found sitting in a corner somewhere with a copy printed out on paper, trying to rehearse it in my head. But I always end up spending most of the time rewriting it instead. Every talk I give ends up being given from a manuscript full of things crossed out and rewritten. Which of course makes me um even more, because I haven't had any time to practice the new bits. [3]Depending on your audience, there are even worse tradeoffs than these. Audiences like to be flattered; they like jokes; they like to be swept off their feet by a vigorous stream of words. As you decrease the intelligence of the audience, being a good speaker is increasingly a matter of being a good bullshitter. That's true in writing too of course, but the descent is steeper with talks. Any given person is dumber as a member of an audience than as a reader. Just as a speaker ad libbing can only spend as long thinking about each sentence as it takes to say it, a person hearing a talk can only spend as long thinking about each sentence as it takes to hear it. Plus people in an audience are always affected by the reactions of those around them, and the reactions that spread from person to person in an audience are disproportionately the more brutish sort, just as low notes travel through walls better than high ones. Every audience is an incipient mob, and a good speaker uses that. Part of the reason I laughed so much at the talk by ...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    8 min

Ce que les auditeurs disent de Yigit Konur's Curation

Moyenne des évaluations de clients

Évaluations – Cliquez sur les onglets pour changer la source des évaluations.

Évaluations sur Audible.ca

Évaluations sur Amazon.ca
Il n'y a pas encore de critiques pour ce titre.