Also notice how I didn't have to bring up Andrew soiling his Pampers when he was a wee beginner.

It's a good thing there's nothing of the sort in TFA then?

Quoting:

"He moved fast and tried a lot of different stuff, jumping head first into problems that he was not yet equipped to solve, leading to mediocre outcomes in terms of engineering, but learning a whole heck of a lot in the process. I see it as quite a healthy attitude, particularly for young people and students. This is the best way to level up and learn new things."

I don't know, maybe you just don't understand what he's saying here? Or rather, are applying some sort of a negative spin to what is a factual analysis of a valid approach to doing something?

	▲	dminik 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		My issue with the paragraph is that it doesn't really connect into anything meaningful. It's just saying that Jarred was a beginner. The only connection it has is as a segue into calling Jarred a terrible manager here: > It was at this point - when he suddenly became a manager - that this "beginner energy" started to hit differently for me. Note how "beginner energy" is considered good in the first paragraph, but suddenly terrible when applied to a different thing here. Terrible work culture aside, and the fact that it seemingly worked out for those who joined aside, Jarred would obviously have beginner energy in management as well considering he's not done it before. Why is it suddenly bad here? Honest question, is there any record of Andrew actually saying Jarred had "beginner energy," or was this invented for the post as well?