It's a $12 stock photo, making it even stranger to put any source label on it https://www.istockphoto.com/vector/gm2076276464-564919694

I agree. I write 70% of it and then Claude helps me refine it by enhancing vocab, structure and grammar. Ideally I would like to just use it fix grammar but atleast this way I am writing more and my drafts just don’t sit in notes.

Self promotion is understandable. But the core message in this is that people calling their past choices as strategy on why they did what they did instead of accepting that it was because of constraints, luck or just the situation.

Often these things lead to wrong motivations for people who consider them as experts

I learnt its called - cognitive dissonance

Or rather, all the people who do it, like to pretend that everyone else does.

Additionally, founders/CxOs talking about or admitting to problems in public is rarely ever a good thing as it reduces confidence in the company - a prime example being the burning platforms memo[1].

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/feb/09/noki...

James Dyson drives me nuts.

His modus operandi is to take something that has an inherent compromise, which exists for a specific reason, and to remove that compromise, thereby slightly improving one thing at the larger expense of something else.

The most obvious example is his vacuum cleaners - his big "innovation" was to remove the bag, which exists to make it easy to empty and to stop the dust from clogging up the workings of the machine, at the expense of a very small amount of suction power. Reviews everywhere say the same thing, always - they last no time at all before the suction power drops substantially because of the clogging-up. I've heard so many times about people making money by rescuing and reselling dumped Dyson vacuum cleaners that "just" needed dismantling and thoroughly cleaning.

Another example is hand dryers - basically just increase the power at the expense of (1) deafening noise and (2) blasting damp germ-filled air everywhere, for which they had to be banned from being installed at any NHS site in the UK, notwithstanding their marketing claims about somehow purifying the blasted air.

He's clearly a brilliant businessman - he's made a fortune from selling these items via top-notch marketing. But he's wrongly described as an "inventor", one of those words a certain class of people love to call themselves. At what point does the act of removing a carefully-designed compromise feature (a fix to one issue at the relatively small expense of something else - a net positive) from an existing piece of equipment, become inventing something new?

I was curious to learn about how they do what they do. Not promoting or demoting their products here. I generally mention things I read as part of footnote

> Dyson is an example of someone whose narrative is bullshit

James Dyson, the salesman of (slightly crap) vacuum cleaners to the middle classes?

I believe he was called out by those middles classes for advocating Brexit to "boost British industry" and invest in Britain, then promptly shifting his operations to Singapore.

Have you found any social medium on internet that actually empowers honesty?

99% of my LinkedIn feed these days is AI slop from people and companies I have never heard of. IDK why anyone looks at the anything other than job listings on LinkedIn. Everything else is garbage.

Yes that’s the point I was trying to make. These lies don’t just affect them but also the people reading it as they might never see what actually happens

And use social media to say it out loud

Not everyone. There are also self-hating or self-criticizing people

A subreddit for the times: https://www.reddit.com/r/LinkedInLunatics/

I learnt people even put wrong revenue numbers or what not

I agree. But I have learnt that it's important to get your work recognized too. Unfortunately, the algorithms doesn't relate to that much rather than just clickbaits.