35,595 results · Most relevant
For Tina Su, whose constraint was herself as the bottleneck, Hormozi recommends building a system so the team can answer repeat questions without her, and fixing the pricing for her one-on-one time.
Hormozi advises Paul Fontanella that a small team cannot split focus across multiple offers, so the right move is to pick one grand slam offer and commit fully to it.
Dr. Gina Poe recommends that people should have fairly consistent bedtimes in addition to fairly consistent wake times. One of the best markers of good neurological health when we get older is consistent bedtimes.
Prioritize making organizational data available to agents before optimizing for cost or model capability. Configure agents to proactively enrich data and notify relevant personnel when new prospects enter the database. View organizational AI tools as an organizational harness that requires time for teams to adapt.
Sam recommends pitching your workflow to Claude and walking through how you do a process, including edge cases, so the AI turns it into structured workflows in the form of markdown files that can be plugged into an AI agent tool. He notes Claude made it simple to create AI agent files this way.
Sam recommends using Claude's planning mode before it writes any code: it maps out the entire project with you, asks questions, and surfaces ambiguity instead of burying it. He notes that building something complex involves dozens of decisions about architecture, data flow, and edge cases, and expects a good AI to ask clarifying questions rather than guess and build.
The host advises that as a man you need to understand that women show interest subtly, and develop the skill set to confidently move the interaction forward in subtle steps — then gauge her level of interest based on how she responds and decide whether to move it forward even more.
Anish Acharya relays an approach from Ale at Kavak (which sells used cars online with an agent per customer): when an agent gets stuck, it calls a human, and the human coaches the agent through. The agent then captures all the traces and learns from it, so the next time it shouldn't have to call the human. It's either a knowledge gap or a data gap you have to give the agent.
After opening with intent, don't go into a name introduction — the coach calls it an additional unnecessary escalation. Instead, elaborate on what you noticed about the woman, her outfit, or what she's up to. This makes the conversation more relevant to her and is less of an escalation. He also discourages asking 'what's your name?' and 'where are you from?' back to back right after opening.
The coach endorses a direct opener like: 'Hey, excuse me. I was just walking by and I saw you and I just thought you looked really cute. So I want to come say hi.' He notes this phrasing is fine if you need a completely canned generic opener, and that the client's use of it was done well.
Tim's learning from the outsiders-glow mistake: when building a leadership team and you notice a missing in-house skill, don't default to hiring experienced outsiders — look at internal candidates first, and give internal people the benefit of the doubt way more than outsiders. He acknowledges that betting on an internal person is a personal investment and a bigger risk on a person than hiring externally.
The speaker explicitly frames this as his personal learning; the risk trade-off is his judgment.
Tim's fix for the culture mistake is to write down a one-pager describing what you think the culture is — a framework is optional, but the act of writing makes a huge difference. Writing it down makes you actually think about it and gives you something to align with other people. If you're with two founders, doing the wordsmithing together will amaze you with how much you actually differ.
The claim about founders discovering differences is the speaker's expectation from experience, not a measured result.
When asked what you do for work, say you'll answer but ask her a question first: which search engine she uses. If she says Google, respond 'Okay, that's what I'm talking about, high five' and explain you thought she'd say something weird like Yahoo or Bing; if she says another engine, tease her with 'Oh really, interesting... why not Google?' Then reveal your job with a fun backstory and a funny low-key flex line.
Step one of cooking with Codex is giving Codex your context from documents, your brain, conversations, email, Notion, Linear, and so forth. Step two is to just build things once you've given it context. A large code base's Git commits and history serve as that context.
Kent C. Dodds recommends launching something small within weeks and testing the market manually, rather than investing a whole team for a year. He reflects that this approach would have allowed testing the market and learning very quickly without the large investment, calling project validation really important.
A step-by-step opening sequence for approaching a woman in a mall: get her attention, stop at a good distance, secure her undivided attention, then deliver the open, followed by an observation rather than a question.
Coach Kyle models a full cold approach on a woman sitting alone: approach slowly and relaxed, vibe, tease, and flirt, sit down next to her rather than standing over her, and start a conversation, eventually asking her to get coffee.
Kent C. Dodds advises that if a task comes without a job to be done attached, go back to the PM and say you don't know enough about what the task is about to design a good system for it. Without the job defined, you can build a requested feature while totally missing the parts of the system or the primitives users actually need, and risk spending three months on something that doesn't hit users.
Ask the judge to explain its thinking before it scores — chain of thought measurably improves accuracy because articulating why something is actionable or correct leads to fewer mistakes than picking a label without thinking. The explanation is also very helpful for you as the eval author.
Wiring up a custom evaluator in code is just like wiring up the other evaluators: create a classification evaluator, give it a name (actionability), an LLM, the template, and the choices. Wire up an LLM classification evaluator in code by giving it a name, an LLM, a prompt template, and its choices, then run evaluate on the data frame. The programmatic choices setup mirrors the UI: correct or incorrect, actionable or not actionable, scores one or zero. Programmatic evaluator setup in code is equivalent to configuring the same evaluator in the UI.
Choose sources → to get a library of your own and a daily brief.