it seems the bar should be that high as that is what the hype has told us we would be getting. I'm OK with it being as good as the hype ...and when it isn't the companies that write the software and build the cars can pay for the damage

disagree with some points here.

I watch many youtube channels with 100Ks of subscribers. Those creators are not out there spending resources getting an audience and those audiences are not coming from personal connections - the platforms are facilitating the connection.

Re : how "attempting to work in the art world" works : this is a very interesting subject/discussion - at what point is someone regularly publishing entertaining youtube videos about small engine repair "working in the art world"? When they get enough income to quit their day job or some lower bar - I dunno - both ? neither / never?

Re stardom: what you're saying is 1000 true fans != total number of fans/casual followers. Agreed.

Thoughtful reply!

The very first paragraph of his article says:

> To be a successful creator you don’t need millions. You don’t need millions of dollars or millions of customers, millions of clients or millions of fans. To make a living as a craftsperson, photographer, musician, designer, author, animator, app maker, entrepreneur, or inventor you need only thousands of true fans.

So, I would argue that creating a successful YouTube channel is almost the opposite of taking the "make 1000 true fans" path to success. YouTube promotes content in ways that causes a massive block of users -- millions, often -- to be casually exposed to a given video or channel. And hopefully some of them subscribe, watch ads, and maybe sign up for the creator's Patreon or something. But this isn't what Kelly describes.

Blasting your work out to millions in the hopes that thousands become "true fans" is a very well-known and well-worn path to success. And, frankly, still a hard one. Unless you happen to get YouTube's algorithm or HBO or Capitol Records to pick you up and give your work a massive promotional boost. And even then I suspect it's tough.

hmm... so, yeah, nothing about 1000 true fans theory points to it being an easy path. Making a living as some sort of creator is hard. The platforms & "the internet (tm)" just provide a plausible access to those fans vs old-media mechanisms.

this is very 2600 - nooice.

so, I've been near sea lions on the Oregon coast - the males can be large and many 100s of pounds (bigger than actual Lions!) and rather intimidating. This picture of the whale's mouth with a sea lion in it really puts into perspective how big the whale is.

I've read the cliff-notes version of first break all the rules. (its floating around the web). It has the list - and also interesting discussion of talent and having employees in positions where their talents are used. IIRC - it also suggests never trying to change people - which I've taken to heart in both work and personal aspects of my life.

I have two Australian shepherds - One of them was a puppy when I read the book about Chaser. So I decide to try to sort-of reproduce some of the author's experiments with my dog - and I'll be damned if it didn't work.

I didn't go to near the extent of the training John Pilley did with Chaser, but I did do the verbal only approach and put the toys in another room - and I was able to teach him to retrieve probably 5 or 10 toys by name. I was really amazed. I didn't do nearly as much training with the second Aussie - but she picked up on the whole game even quicker than the first dog (because she had a role model?).

Another thing I learned about this game/training : it really wears the dog out. After 20 or so minutes of playing "go find the toy" they dogs lay down for a nap.

(ps. doing "nose-work" games with dogs also wears them out)

I'm really glad this is coming back - I've bought it several times over the years and really enjoyed flying it. In more recent versions using the ATC and trying to make it as realistic as possible experience - flying around between nearby local airports.

From the article:

>"If we could get more of them doing it, it would be great," he joked.

>Karisoke's Vecellio, though, said actively instructing the apes would be against the center's ethos.

>"No we can't teach them," she said. "We try as much as we can to not interfere with the gorillas. We don't want to affect their natural behavior."

I wonder if this "prime-directive" style rule might be something they consider changed - if there was a way to teach the gorillas to disabled various kinds of traps it seems that would be great.

On the other hand, I wonder what the side effects would be.. anyone?

Hmm - here's how I did the back of napkin math:

1,000,000 gross in a peak year.

say business is open 290 days of the year.

avg per day = 3448 euro

if average customer order spend is ~15 euro, that's ~230 orders per day that must be made to sustain the 1mm euro gross.

So - if the biz is open 6 hours (optimized around eating times) - that would be ~38 orders/hour.

Key Questions: for the average case : is 38 orders/hour OR 230 orders/day reasonable or not?

for the non-average case: can they make 2x the orders really busy days - i.e. what is the absolute peak orders than can make in a day?

I'm guessing this comment is tongue in cheek.

I've heard it before from folks who were putting themselves in the #1 category, and also, it appeared, exhibiting Dunning–Kruger effects.