A solid process lays the foundation for a healthy culture, one where ideas are evaluated by merit and not by job title.

Science and vision are not opposites or even at odds. They need each other. I sometimes hear other startup folks say something along the lines of: 'If entrepreneurship was a science, then anyone could do it.' I'd like to point out that even science is a science, and still very few people can do it, let alone do it well.

Meritocracy is a good thing. Whenever possibly, people should be judged based on their work and results, not superficial qualities.

A head start is rarely large enough to matter, and time spent in stealth mode-away from customers-is unlikely to provide a head start. The only way to win is to learn faster than anyone else.

The goal of every startup experiment is to discover how to build a sustainable business around that vision.

What differentiates the success stories from the failures is that the successful entrepreneurs had the foresight, the ability, and the tools to discover which parts of their plans were working brilliantly and which were misguided, and adapt their strategies accordingly.

What if we found ourselves building something that nobody wanted? In that case what did it matter if we did it on time and on budget?