- 1 ≫ 0: One Is Better Than None
- Stop Trying Hard. Try Easy.
- Do Something Easy, Or Nothing At All. There Is No Hard.
- When Are You Going to Stop Trying to Score Only Three-Pointers, Start Making Friends with Mediocrity and Start Realizing That Excellence Comes From the Rejection of Perfection?
- Mediocre Excellence, Or, Excellence By Mediocrity: How To Achieve Greatly By Doing Almost Nothing
- Not Nothing
- Birthlines, Part 3: If You Want To Win, Stop Trying To Finish
- 1 ≫ 0: One Is Better Than None
- Stop Trying To Do Things Well: Getting Over Zero
- That Righteous Feeling, Or: If You’re Not Feeling Naughty, You’re Doing It Wrong
- Method Over Morality: Don’t Improve Yourself. Stop Trying to Become a Better Person.
- Just Do One: Lowering Your Standards and Using Patterns from Addictions to Achieve Success
- Too Much Technique, Too Little Volume: それ以前の問題
- Always Underdo. Perfection Is Death.
“All failure comes from trying too hard.” / NAKATANI Akihiro
1 is bigger than 0.
Obvious, I know. Common sense, I know. But common sense isn’t common. Common sense is the least common of the senses, as other people have pointed out.
1 is bigger than 0. How often we forget this simple fact.
You know how it is. We all learn about mathematical concepts like negative numbers — which were probably considered a wild and crazy idea at one time, and perhaps for good reason — so we tend to think of 1 as only being slightly bigger than 0.
But it’s not. 1
In RL 2, 1 isn’t just slightly bigger than 0. 1 is infinitely bigger than 0. That means it’s not just a matter of 1 > 0 (1 is greater than 0). 1 ≫ 0 (1 is much greater than 0). Because 1 is the start of everything. While 0 is the path to nothing. No matter how many 0’s you string together, you get nothing. But a bunch of 1’s adds up. A bunch of 1’s, multiplied by a bunch of time, adds up. And it doesn’t just add up — it even compounds, like interest.
0 is a white shirt. 1 is a blue stain. 100 is a red stain. 1 is much closer to 100 than it is to 0. No, 0 isn’t even a shirt. It’s a transparent Ziploc bag. No, it’s not even that. It’s a vacuum. 0 is the total absence of existence. Add 0 to anything and…you get the same anything. Add 0 (nothing) to 0 (nothing) and you get…nothing.
The current evidence from places like Swaziland suggests that humans have had math for some 35,000 years, give or take. Yet for most of human history, we didn’t have the number 0. Apparently, mathematicians in Greece and Egypt were like: “Dude, how the FXXX can nothing be something?!”. The entire Roman empire 3 started, rose, declined and fell all without the number 0. Engineers in ancient Rome implemented public works projects — roads, aqueducts, indoor plumbing, massive buildings — on a scale and to a standard that was not equaled in Europe until about last Tuesday 4…without 0. We’re talking about people who had to write the number “2347” as “MMCCCXLVII”.
Here — count to 0. Where’s your zero finger? 0 is a very weird number-slash-concept. It sits next to 5 1 on the real number line 6, but the real number line, names notwithstanding, isn’t “real”. In content and character, 0 is nothing like 1 or any other number. 0 is not of this world; it is of the math world.
So when you do 0, you’re not just doing slightly less than 1. Doing nothing is of a fundamentally different character than doing something. And doing something is of a fundamentally different character than doing nothing. Something (1, etc.) and nothing (0) are not the same; they’re not friends; they’re not neighbors; they’re not cousins; they don’t know each other; they don’t even live in the same universe.
It’s not doing too little that kills you(r projects). It’s doing nothing. No need to hit home-runs. No need to hit 100. Go easy. Take it easy. No need to swing with all your might. Screw that. Just bunt it. Just do 1. Right here. Right now. No big deal. No fanfare. No parade.
Don’t listen to Japanese. Just play a Japanese song and turn up the volume.
- That crap is only true in theoretical mathematics. It just doesn’t seem theoretical because negative numbers have become so common and useful. ↩
- away from the real number line ↩
- AFAIK — I could be wrong ↩
- OK, the Industrial Revolution 😛 ↩
- let’s…just…politely ignore real number density here 😛 ↩
- Well…the integer line — thanks for the correction, Pikrass 🙂 ↩