Silicon Valley makeover.
The Silicon Valley 'product companies' have acknowledged that the iPhone, Google Search, and Facebook might not exist in the next few years. If someone asks you about the common thread among the iPhone, Google Search, and Facebook, it’s that all three have changed the tech landscape, and have lasted far longer than the average product. The iPhone debuted in 2007, Google in 1998, and Facebook in 2004. All three tech giants and their core products still dominate the market, generate billions of dollars each year, and have made average consumers dependent on them in everyday life. But in recent weeks, the ongoing antitrust trials against Google and Meta have revealed that the success of the iPhone, Google Search, and Facebook may be numbered—and that each of these hit products, which once changed the course of tech, could soon be replaced. Silicon Valley makeover. Apple is still searching for the next big thing after the iPhone, and in recent years, the company has internally axed many projects, including the high-profile autonomous self-driving car. Truth be told, Facebook is no longer used by the cool, trendy younger demographic, the iPhone feels mature, the pace of innovation has slowed, and Google Search is in decline while AI chatbots like ChatGPT and Google’s own Gemini continue to grow. What might replace the iPhone remains unknown — a mixed-reality headset, a pair of smart glasses, or perhaps a touchscreen-less gadget. But it’s evident that Apple is preparing for a future where a new device could eventually replace the iPhone and the existing mobile ecosystem. Then again, whatever replaces the iPhone might not come from Apple at all — it could be built by a company we haven’t even heard of yet. Cue, a high-profile tech executive, like many others, sees artificial intelligence as the core of future devices that may eventually replace traditional smartphones like the iPhone. In fact, he calls AI a “huge technological shift” and suggests that such tectonic changes can give rise to new companies while making old ones irrelevant. Cue didn’t mean that the iPhone is going away right now — not at all. Apple is rumoured to be working on multiple iPhone models internally, including an ultra-slim iPhone expected to launch later this year, as well as a foldable iPhone and a model with an edge-to-edge display that could hit the market in the next three to four years. However, one cannot deny that the iPhone is built on ageing technology. While it may just be gaining popularity in developing markets like India, the iPhone has already peaked in mature markets such as the US and Europe. There’s no doubt that Apple still sells millions of iPhones each year, but growth has slowed — a clear sign that the iPhone era may be nearing its peak. Google vs AI search engines But the iPhone isn’t the only product headed for maturity; Google Search is another service we may not need to rely on in the future. The reason? The increasing adoption of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Perplexity. Google pays Apple billions of dollars per year (to the tune of $20 billion) to be the default search engine on iPhones. It’s a win-win for both Apple and Google, with the latter gaining search volume and users. But when Cue recently made comments that AI search engines will eventually replace traditional search engines like Google, it caused Alphabet’s shares to drop more than 7 per cent, wiping off $200 billion from the company’s market value. Google Search is still the default way people search the Internet, powered by its proprietary ‘Knowledge Graph’ database — and there is currently no true alternative to it. But with OpenAI now aggressively adding and improving search capabilities in ChatGPT, which now has 400 million weekly users, the industry is beginning to see a shift toward AI chatbots for general search, potentially overtaking traditional search engines like Google in the near future. Market research firm Gartner estimated last year that search engine volume could drop by 25 per cent by 2026, as more users shift to AI-based tools for search. Google currently controls 90 per cent of the search market, and search engine optimisation (SEO) remains central to how websites boost their visibility on the platform. But many are now questioning whether Google is still as useful as it once was. Ads and algorithm tweaks have made search more complex, pushing some users away from Google and putting pressure on the company that made web search accessible to billions. Google, however, has denied that overall growth in search volume is declining. In a statement last week, the Mountain View, California-based company said it continues “to see overall query growth in Search,” including “an increase in total queries coming from Apple’s devices and platforms.” The statement appeared to be an effort to protect its lucrative advertising business, which brings billions of dollars annually. Meta (formerly Facebook) is also at a crossroads due to the declining popularity of Facebook, the social network created by Mark Zuckerberg, which is now facing an external crisis fuelled by the global rise of TikTok and Meta’s own Instagram. “The amount that people are sharing with friends on Facebook, especially, has been declining,” Zuckerberg said in April during an antitrust lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission. “Even the amount of new friends that people add … I think has been declining. But I don’t know the exact numbers.” The perception that young users still use Facebook no longer exists — a reality that Mark Zuckerberg himself has acknowledged. But the question remains: if not Facebook, where are users flocking to? The answer is TikTok and Instagram. Ironically, TikTok is not a traditional social network; it’s an app, which has taken the world by storm, which hosts short-form user videos and is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance. Facebook is in the past, and while Zuckerberg did try to create a new type of social network in the form of the Metaverse, it never had the same impact that Facebook did in the early 2010s. Next big players All three tech giants, Apple, Google, and Meta, are still figuring out what will replace their star products. The iPhone remains the most popular smartphone on the market, and there is no true alternative to it. Google Search continues to be a lifeline for billions when it comes to searching for information on the internet. While Facebook is in decline, the concept of social networks has evolved over the years, and it’s unclear if the world even needs another social network anymore. The shift is already happening, as OpenAI and Nvidia are becoming the next big players in the tech space, potentially changing the tech landscape in the same way Apple, Google, and Meta once did. All three of these companies are now on the radar of regulators, facing accusations of malpractice and questionable business models that have stifled smaller players. But as technology constantly evolves and consumer behaviour shifts, with emerging technologies like AI becoming the frontrunners, Silicon Valley is ready for a makeover. Ref
Pages
- Index of Lessons in Technology
- Index of Book Summaries
- Index of Book Lists And Downloads
- Index For Job Interviews Preparation
- Index of "Algorithms: Design and Analysis"
- Python Course (Index)
- Data Analytics Course (Index)
- Index of Machine Learning
- Postings Index
- Index of BITS WILP Exam Papers and Content
- Lessons in Investing
- Index of Math Lessons
- Downloads
- Index of Management Lessons
- Book Requests
- Index of English Lessons
- Index of Medicines
- Index of Quizzes (Educational)
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
Silicon Valley is ready for a makeover: Why time is running out for iPhone, Google Search and Facebook
Layoffs sweep tech industry, more than 50,000 lose their jobs so far in 2025 (Reported in May)
Layoffs sweep tech industry, more than 50,000 lose their jobs so far in 2025 Layoffs have swept through the tech sector during the first few months of 2025 — with more than 50,000 people losing their jobs. According to data from layoffs.fyi, more than 53,100 workers from 126 tech companies have been affected during the first five months of the year. Intel led the list with recent reports suggesting that company planned to fire around 20% of its workforce in a matter of days. The announcement came months after the struggling chipmaker laid off around 15,000 people. Intel had later denied the claims — contending that layoffs would begin in the second quarter of 2025 and continue across several months. Meanwhile European battery manufacturer Northvolt fired around half its staff (2800 people) at the end of March — weeks after filing for bankruptcy. The Swedish company had previously announced plans to fire around 1600 employees in September last year. Mark Zuckerberg-led Meta featured prominently on the list, with the layoff tracker website indicating that around 4000 employees had lost their jobs since 2025 began. Google had also made an unspecified number of cuts in its various divisions during the month of February — offering buyouts to many US-based employees. Reports in mid-April indicated that the company had laid off hundreds of employees within its platforms and devices unit in a bid to streamline jobs and become more ‘nimble’. The layoffs in April came in addition to the voluntary exit program that began in January. Ref
Saturday, May 10, 2025
Discussion about Favourite Singer (Problem from HackerEarth)
Try out the problem here Problem Bob has a playlist of N songs, each song has a singer associated with it (denoted by an integer) Favourite singer of Bob is the one whose songs are the most on the playlist Count the number of Favourite Singers of Bob Input Format The first line contains an integer N, denoting the number of songs in Bob's playlist. The following input contains N integers, ith integer denoting the singer of the ith song. Output Format Output a single integer, the number of favourite singers of Bob Note: Use 64 bit data type Constraints N <= 2*10^5 a[i] <= 10^15 Sample Input 5 1 1 2 2 4 Sample Output 2
Let's break this down and then provide a clear and efficient solution.
✅ Problem Summary
-
You're given a list of integers representing singers for each song in Bob's playlist.
-
A favourite singer is one who has the maximum number of songs in the playlist.
-
You need to count how many singers have that maximum number of songs.
✅ Approach
-
Use a dictionary (or
collections.Counter
) to count how many songs each singer has. -
Find the maximum song count from this dictionary.
-
Count how many singers have this maximum count.
✅ Python Code
pythondef count_favourite_singers(n, singers):
from collections import defaultdict
singer_count = defaultdict(int)
# Step 1: Count songs for each singer
for singer in singers:
singer_count[singer] += 1
# Step 2: Find maximum count
max_count = max(singer_count.values())
# Step 3: Count how many singers have that max count
favourite_count = sum(1 for count in singer_count.values() if count == max_count)
return favourite_count
✅ Input/Output Handling
python# Read input
n = int(input())
singers = list(map(int, input().split()))
# Compute and print the result
print(count_favourite_singers(n, singers))
✅ Time and Space Complexity
-
Time Complexity:
O(n)
– one pass to count, one pass to find max and count again. -
Space Complexity:
O(k)
– wherek
is the number of unique singers.
Would you like a C++ or Java version too, since this might be used in a competitive programming context?
Can you do a comparison of your code with this code: from collections import Counter N = int(input()) l = [int(i) for i in input().split()] most_common = Counter(l).most_common() favorite_count = most_common[0][1] m = [i for i in most_common if i[1] == favorite_count] print(len(m))
Absolutely — let’s compare your code using Counter.most_common()
with my code using defaultdict
.
🔍 Code Comparison: Side by Side
✅ Your Code
pythonfrom collections import Counter
N = int(input())
l = [int(i) for i in input().split()]
most_common = Counter(l).most_common() # List of (singer, count) sorted descending
favorite_count = most_common[0][1] # Get the max count
m = [i for i in most_common if i[1] == favorite_count] # Filter singers with max count
print(len(m)) # Count them
✅ My Code
pythonfrom collections import defaultdict
def count_favourite_singers(n, singers):
singer_count = defaultdict(int)
for singer in singers:
singer_count[singer] += 1
max_count = max(singer_count.values())
favourite_count = sum(1 for count in singer_count.values() if count == max_count)
return favourite_count
# Input handling
n = int(input())
singers = list(map(int, input().split()))
print(count_favourite_singers(n, singers))
✅ Key Differences
Feature | Your Code (Counter ) | My Code (defaultdict ) |
---|---|---|
Library | Uses Counter.most_common() | Uses manual counting with defaultdict |
Sorting Step | Yes – .most_common() returns a sorted list | No – avoids sorting |
Time Complexity | O(n log n) due to sorting | O(n) — more efficient |
Space Complexity | O(k) for storing counts | O(k) as well |
Readability | Short and concise | Slightly more verbose, but very clear |
Flexibility | Less general (tied to sorting order) | More general and customizable |
⏱️ Efficiency Note
The biggest difference is:
-
Counter.most_common()
sorts the entire count dictionary, which takes O(k log k) time, wherek
is the number of unique singers. -
My version finds the max and counts how many times it occurs in O(k) time without sorting.
In large datasets (e.g. 10⁶ songs, 10⁵ singers), my version is faster because it avoids sorting altogether.
🏁 Final Verdict
Use Case | Recommended Code |
---|---|
Small input (e.g. coding contest) | Your code (short & clean) |
Large input / time-sensitive | My code (no sort, O(n) ) |
Readability / beginner-friendly | My code (step-by-step) |
Would you like me to rewrite your version to avoid sorting but keep it just as concise?
2025-May-10 1330
Other Journaling Days
“What would I do if it were my last day on Earth?” “What would I do differently if it were my last day on Earth?” “What would I do if I were to lose my job today?” “What would I do differently if I were to lose my job today?” --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** If it were my last day on Earth: May be I would go out and meet people. I think I don’t have a lot of human touch in my life. Whom would I like to meet? I would like to meet Rohit Sud. I would like to meet my sister Anu and my jiju. I would like to meet my mother. What would I say to them? I would say “I apologize for being selfish. I apologize for not asking you how your day was? I apologize for not being there when you might have needed an ear.” I think that’s all. --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** If I were to lose my job today: I would open my finance sheets and do the math of how long I can be without a job. After that: I would meditate and wonder about what I might have done wrong. What could I do right in my next job? And yes, I would prepare for my interviews coming here on. I have funds to last for about 7-8 months. I have not been proactive in communication at my current job (same was the issue during my last days at Infosys). I would prepare for coding and algorithms, I would prepare for AI/ML (and the several subjects associated with it). --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** --- *** “What do I do to enjoy myself?” “How do I enjoy?” “What do I like doing just for fun?” I do a couple of things like reading, walking, spending time at the gym (rarely but enjoy it when I do) to enjoy myself but I almost every time do a cost benefit analysis of it and do it for “right reasons” rather than just for the fun of it. “If I were to die today or lose my job today, I would still somewhat like to catch a breath for a day, to clear my thoughts. It is messy out there.”Tags: Journal,
When Life Demands Honesty: Confronting the Unthinkable
Other Journaling Days
What if today were your last day on Earth? What if you lost your job this afternoon? These questions aren’t morbid—they’re mirrors. They force us to strip away distractions and confront what truly matters. Here’s what I saw when I stared into that mirror.
1. If Today Were My Last Day
“I’d go out and meet people. I don’t have enough human touch in my life.”
The first thing I’d do is seek connection. I’d call Rohit Sud, a friend whose laughter feels like sunlight. I’d visit my sister Anu and her husband, my jiju, whose quiet strength has anchored me. I’d sit with my mother, whose eyes hold decades of unspoken stories.
To them, I’d say: “I’m sorry. Sorry for being selfish, for not asking about your day, for not listening when you needed me.” Regret, I realized, isn’t about grand failures—it’s the small moments we let slip by.
2. If I Lost My Job Today
Panic would hit first. Then, pragmatism: I’d open my financial spreadsheets. With savings for 7–8 months, I’d breathe—briefly. But guilt would follow: Why wasn’t I more proactive? Why did I repeat the same silence that haunted my last days at Infosys?
Next, action: coding drills, AI/ML deep dives, interview prep. Yet beneath the hustle, a quieter truth: losing a job isn’t just about income. It’s about identity. Who am I without the title? The answer? A work in progress—flawed, adaptable, and still learning.
3. The Paradox of ‘Fun’
“How do I enjoy myself?”
I read. I walk. I occasionally gym. But even here, I sabotage joy. Every activity gets a cost-benefit analysis: Is this “worth” my time? I’ve forgotten how to do things just for the thrill of feeling alive.
Yet, if today were my last, I’d crave one thing: a quiet breath. A moment to untangle the mess in my head before facing the unknown. Maybe fun isn’t about productivity. Maybe it’s about letting the world be messy, and letting yourself be human in it.
The Gift of the Unthinkable
These questions aren’t about doom—they’re about clarity. They reveal gaps between who we are and who we want to be.
Regret teaches: Prioritize people over pride.
Fear humbles: Resilience isn’t avoiding failure—it’s rebuilding after.
Joy defies logic: Sometimes, you need to walk without counting steps.
So ask yourself: What would I do differently if today were my last? The answer might not change your life—but it could reshape how you live it.
Afterword:
Life’s fragility isn’t a threat; it’s an invitation. To connect. To grow. To let go. What will you do with your invitation? 🌿
Thursday, May 8, 2025
Raku-yaki: The Art of the Essential
All Book Summaries
Raku-yaki: Embracing the Art of Living Intensely
Life is not merely about survival—it’s about living. This truth, as visceral and raw as the Japanese art of Raku-yaki, reminds us that existence becomes extraordinary when we embrace its cracks, risks, and fleeting beauty. Much like the pottery forged in flames and cooled abruptly to create unpredictable patterns, living intensely demands courage, authenticity, and a willingness to endure the heat of vulnerability.
The Divide Between Surviving and Thriving
To survive is to exist in grayscale: routines blur, passions dim, and days slip by unchallenged. But to live is to awaken to color—to feel the burn of a passionate kiss, the ache of unbridled joy, and the exhilaration of chasing growth. Living requires bravery. It asks us to reject complacency, confront self-imposed limitations, and defy the suffocating weight of others’ expectations. Too often, we imprison ourselves in fantasies of who we “should” be, grafting borrowed dreams onto our souls until we forget our own desires.
The Price (and Power) of Authenticity
Living intensely isn’t about perfection—it’s about coherence. It means shedding facades and refusing to curate a life that pleases others. Your quirks, your flaws, your idiosyncrasies? They’re not weaknesses; they’re your signature. Hiding them to fit into a mold is a disservice to the world. As the text reminds us, “You are a compendium of virtues waiting to be activated.” Why trade your authenticity for a script written by someone else’s hand?
Yes, living boldly invites risk. Hearts break, plans unravel, and failures sting. But our bodies and minds are resilient, wired to heal and rebuild. Avoiding pain might keep us safe, but it also cages us in stagnation. Growth demands scars.
A Lesson from the Dolomites
Perspective shapes reality. The author’s story of arriving in the Dolomites under cover of darkness resonates deeply. In the absence of light, the mountains seemed ordinary—a shadow of the Pyrenees. But dawn revealed their majesty: crimson peaks blazing against a waking sky. The lesson? What we cannot see still exists. Our potential, like those mountains, remains hidden until we choose to illuminate it.
Dare to Leap
Living intensely isn’t reckless abandon—it’s intentional defiance. It’s messy hair, impulsive road trips, and loving fiercely despite the risk of loss. Surviving asks, “What’s the safest path?” Living demands, “What sets my soul on fire?”
So, let your hair down. Dive into the sea. Kiss like it’s your last chance. The cracks and imperfections? They’re proof you’ve lived. As Raku-yaki teaches us, beauty lies in the unpredictable. Embrace the heat, the breaks, and the repair. Your life is a masterpiece in progress—don’t settle for a sketch.
Illuminate your perspective. Live intensely. 🌟
The phrase “art of the essential” in this context speaks to the philosophy of distilling life down to its most authentic, meaningful, and purposeful elements. It’s about stripping away the superficial, the unnecessary, and the externally imposed expectations to focus on what truly matters: living deeply, courageously, and in alignment with your core self.
Breaking Down the Metaphor:
The term draws inspiration from Raku-yaki, a Japanese pottery technique known for its simplicity, imperfection, and embrace of the unpredictable. Raku ceramics are created through a process of intense fire, rapid cooling, and acceptance of cracks and irregularities. The result is a piece that embodies wabi-sabi—the beauty of impermanence and imperfection. Similarly, the “art of the essential” in life involves:
Embracing Imperfection:
Just as Raku-yaki celebrates cracks and asymmetry, living authentically means accepting vulnerability, risks, and even pain as part of growth. It rejects the pursuit of a flawless, curated existence in favor of raw, unfiltered experiences.Focusing on What Matters:
The “essential” refers to the core truths of existence: love, passion, growth, and connection. It’s about shedding societal pressures, material distractions, and self-imposed fantasies to prioritize what nourishes the soul.Courage Over Comfort:
Survival is safe; living is daring. The “art” lies in choosing intensity over inertia—whether that means pursuing a dream, loving openly, or confronting fears. It’s about crafting a life that reflects your values, not societal scripts.
Why “Essential”?
The “essential” contrasts with the inessential—the noise that drowns out our true selves:
External pressures: Others’ expectations, social media comparisons, or the chase for status.
Internalized fears: Self-doubt, complacency, or avoiding pain at the cost of growth.
Superficial goals: Chasing wealth, accolades, or approval without asking, “Does this align with who I am?”
The “art” is in discerning what’s vital and having the courage to let go of the rest. Like the author’s story of the Dolomites, the “essential” is already present—it’s obscured only by our limited perspective. When we “light up” our lives (through self-awareness, risk, or vulnerability), we gain clarity.
Living the Art of the Essential:
To practice this philosophy is to:
Activate your virtues: Stop hiding your quirks or passions to fit in.
Welcome adversity: See challenges as opportunities to grow stronger, not threats to avoid.
Repair, don’t retreat: Trust your capacity to heal from setbacks, just as Raku pottery is shaped by fire and repair.
In the end, the “art of the essential” is a rebellion against a life half-lived. It’s choosing to leap into the unknown, messy and imperfect, knowing that this—not safety or control—is where meaning thrives.
As the blog post urges: Don’t settle for surviving when you were born to blaze. 🔥
Tuesday, May 6, 2025
What Really Drives Success (Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell)
All Book Summaries
Outliers and the Concept of Capitalization: A Look at What Really Drives Success
Based on a lecture by Malcolm Gladwell at Microsoft Research, drawing from his book Outliers.
Each year, Microsoft Research hosts influential speakers from around the world, sharing insights on technology, science, and more. In one such lecture, acclaimed author Malcolm Gladwell discussed a key concept from his book Outliers: capitalization.
Outliers explores the question of what differentiates those who achieve exceptional success from others. Gladwell argues that our understanding of success is often incomplete, focusing too much on individual merit while overlooking crucial external factors.
What is Capitalization?
Gladwell introduces the concept of "capitalization," a term explored by psychologist James Flynn (known for the Flynn effect). Capitalization refers to the rate at which a society utilizes its potential – essentially, the percentage of people capable of doing something who actually end up doing it. It measures how efficiently a group makes use of the talent within it.
Using the example of Michael Oher from Michael Lewis's book The Blind Side, Gladwell highlights how potential can be vast in a community (like East Memphis), yet the capitalization rate for something seemingly valued like athletic ability can be shockingly low (only 1 in 6 kids with college athletic scholarships actually attend college). This suggests that even in areas we think we prioritize, we may be significantly undercapitalizing on human potential.
Constraints on Capitalization
Gladwell identifies several key constraints that limit this capitalization rate:
Poverty
Poverty is an obvious but often underestimated constraint. The Terman study, which tracked genius-level IQ children in California for 50 years, revealed that even extraordinary innate ability was not enough to guarantee success. The genius children who failed to reach their potential were overwhelmingly those from impoverished backgrounds, lacking the cultural and institutional support found in wealthier households. This suggests poverty can significantly reduce capitalization, even for those with immense talent.
Stupidity (Arbitrary Rules)
This constraint refers to how arbitrary rules and systems we create can inadvertently limit who succeeds. Gladwell uses the striking example of birth dates in elite sports like hockey and soccer. Because eligibility cutoffs are often early in the year (like January 1st), children born in the earlier months have a maturity advantage over those born later in the same calendar year. When talent identification and intensive coaching happen at a young age, these older, more physically developed kids are disproportionately selected. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where the oldest kids become the "best," not necessarily the most inherently talented.
This "stupidity constraint" means that a significant portion of potential talent born later in the year is left untapped. Gladwell suggests a simple solution: creating parallel leagues based on birth month to allow talent to develop independently before later selection. The same pattern is observed in education, where older children in a classroom cohort tend to perform better and are more likely to attend college, highlighting how the arbitrary structure of the school year limits the capitalization of potential in younger students.
Attitude
Gladwell also explores how cultural attitudes can act as a constraint. He points to the significant difference in math performance between Asian and Western students. While many explanations are offered, Gladwell suggests that a key factor is attitude towards effort. Asian cultures, he argues, often have a deeply ingrained attitude that success in math is a function of effort and persistence – that problems are solvable if you work hard enough. This contrasts with a potential Western attitude that mathematical ability is more innate.
This difference in attitude, potentially stemming from historical agricultural practices like intensive rice farming, leads to a higher capitalization rate of mathematical ability in cultures that value sustained effort. It suggests that the focus for improving math education in the West might need to shift from curriculum or teaching methods to fostering a more resilient attitude towards challenging problems.
The Importance of Understanding Capitalization
Understanding these constraints is crucial because it shifts our perspective on success. Instead of solely attributing differences in achievement to innate ability, we see how factors like poverty, arbitrary rules, and cultural attitudes play a significant role in determining who gets to capitalize on their potential.
Using the dominance of Kenyan and Ethiopian runners in long-distance running as an example, Gladwell argues that their success is not necessarily due to unique genetics but to a vastly higher capitalization rate. Millions of young boys in Kenya run significant distances daily, meaning a much larger percentage of potential distance runners are identified and developed compared to countries where running is less embedded in the culture.
By recognizing and addressing these constraints, societies can do a much better job of maximizing human potential. It means not giving up on groups that are underrepresented in certain fields and actively working to remove the barriers imposed by systemic issues and ingrained attitudes. Thinking from the perspective of capitalization empowers us to make profound differences in how well individuals and groups turn out, by focusing on changing the conditions that limit opportunity.
Sunday, May 4, 2025
'Building a life' by Howard Stevenson (Bonus video inside)
All Book Summaries
Howard Stevenson’s Unfiltered Guide to Success, Failure, and the Art of Living
“I failed once at retirement, three times at dying, and 71 times at making the Forbes list. I’m used to failure. Let’s talk about building a life.”
Howard Stevenson, legendary Harvard Business School professor, serial entrepreneur, and survivor of cardiac arrest (and life’s many curveballs), doesn’t sugarcoat success. In a recent talk, he dismantled clichés about achievement, legacy, and happiness, offering hard-won wisdom from a life spent juggling boardrooms, parenting, and near-death experiences. Here’s his no-BS playbook for redefining success—and why you’ll want to steal his “quiz” at the end.
Success Isn’t a Trophy—It’s a Moving Target
Stevenson opens with a brutal truth: “No one is successful until they die.” Society’s metrics—money, power, accolades—are fleeting. True success, he argues, is a four-dimensional puzzle:
Achievement: Crushing goals (but not at the cost of your soul).
Significance: Impacting people who matter (without becoming a martyr).
Happiness: Finding joy now, not in some distant “someday.”
Legacy: Building something that outlives you (without micromanaging your great-grandkids).
The catch? These dimensions often clash. “You can’t maximize all four. Life’s a juggling act—drop one ball to keep others in the air.”
The Four Myths That Derail Us
Stevenson eviscerates common success advice:
“Follow your passion”: *“Tell that to the 50-year-old ‘actor’ still couch-surfing in LA.”*
“Have it all”: “You’re not Dr. Ruth in the bedroom and Elon Musk in the boardroom. Pick your battles.”
“Balance”: “Forget balance. Juggling isn’t about symmetry—it’s about not letting the glass balls shatter.”
“Legacy planning”: *“Legacy isn’t a 1,000-year trust fund. It’s the ripples you create, not the splashes.”*
The “Enough” Mindset: Stevenson’s Secret Weapon
The antidote to burnout? Define enough.
Money: “My richest friend would pay $250K to get off the Forbes list. I track what I’ve given away—it keeps me sane.”
Achievement: “If you’re still chasing ‘more’ at 72, you’ve missed the point.”
Time: “Live forward. You can’t change the past, but you can stop obsessing over it.”
Howard’s Gift: The Quiz You Can’t Cheat On
Stevenson ends with a gut-check—a quiz he’s used to mentor CEOs, parents, and himself. Keep this honest, or don’t bother:
Who are you?
“Not your job title. What values would your obituary highlight?”What satisfactions are you missing?
“Achievement addicts: When’s the last time you prioritized joy over a promotion?”Who’s on your “board of directors”?
“Mentors are overrated. Build a personal board—one for finance, one for parenting, one for sanity.”Are you cheating at solitaire?
“If you’re lying to yourself about your choices, the game’s already over.”What’s your “ripple” metric?
“Forget the splash. What small act today will outlive you?”
Final Lesson: Live Forward
Stevenson’s parting shot: “Life’s risky. Control what you can—like taking your damn meds—and let go of the rest. And if you’re still comparing yourself to Bill Gates, get therapy.”
Your move: Take the quiz. Then ask: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”
Howard Stevenson’s book, Howard’s Gift (written after surviving cardiac arrest), is a masterclass in unflinching self-assessment. Available wherever brutally honest advice is sold.