George Bonaci

Like I think the type of person that would go and become a chemist like me or an engineer is probably very different than someone that's like, hey, I want to become a writer or a

I want to get into comms or PR, like very valuable skills, but very, very different from the way in thinking or way of thinking that would make someone successful, like scoping an experiment and thinking about like what my hypothesis is and how I'm going to measure results. It's just like a different part of your brain. Like I would be a terrible writer, for example.

I want to get into comms or PR, like very valuable skills, but very, very different from the way in thinking or way of thinking that would make someone successful, like scoping an experiment and thinking about like what my hypothesis is and how I'm going to measure results. It's just like a different part of your brain. Like I would be a terrible writer, for example.

I want to get into comms or PR, like very valuable skills, but very, very different from the way in thinking or way of thinking that would make someone successful, like scoping an experiment and thinking about like what my hypothesis is and how I'm going to measure results. It's just like a different part of your brain. Like I would be a terrible writer, for example.

That is a good question. The short answer is it has to be both. If you're doing a good job, and it depends on the stage of the company, but in general, if you're doing a good job, you're thinking in terms of different time horizons. So you have to have some like bucket of bets or experiments that are going to be those like big swing, huge step changes and impact.

That is a good question. The short answer is it has to be both. If you're doing a good job, and it depends on the stage of the company, but in general, if you're doing a good job, you're thinking in terms of different time horizons. So you have to have some like bucket of bets or experiments that are going to be those like big swing, huge step changes and impact.

That is a good question. The short answer is it has to be both. If you're doing a good job, and it depends on the stage of the company, but in general, if you're doing a good job, you're thinking in terms of different time horizons. So you have to have some like bucket of bets or experiments that are going to be those like big swing, huge step changes and impact.

But those are generally high risk, high rewards. You can't just do that. Otherwise, you're going to fail and miss your number this quarter. At the same time, you need to have some bets where you have high confidence, but probably not going to move the needle a ton. But it'll help you get the 2%, 3%, 4%, 5% improvement this quarter. And then you have everything in between.

But those are generally high risk, high rewards. You can't just do that. Otherwise, you're going to fail and miss your number this quarter. At the same time, you need to have some bets where you have high confidence, but probably not going to move the needle a ton. But it'll help you get the 2%, 3%, 4%, 5% improvement this quarter. And then you have everything in between.

But those are generally high risk, high rewards. You can't just do that. Otherwise, you're going to fail and miss your number this quarter. At the same time, you need to have some bets where you have high confidence, but probably not going to move the needle a ton. But it'll help you get the 2%, 3%, 4%, 5% improvement this quarter. And then you have everything in between.

So ideally, you're being intentional with how you're allocating your resources across everything from the very long term to the very short term. And how you make those bets and how you allocate those resources is actually a conversation you should probably have with finance or with leadership and align it to the goals of the company. But that's my way of thinking about it.

So ideally, you're being intentional with how you're allocating your resources across everything from the very long term to the very short term. And how you make those bets and how you allocate those resources is actually a conversation you should probably have with finance or with leadership and align it to the goals of the company. But that's my way of thinking about it.

So ideally, you're being intentional with how you're allocating your resources across everything from the very long term to the very short term. And how you make those bets and how you allocate those resources is actually a conversation you should probably have with finance or with leadership and align it to the goals of the company. But that's my way of thinking about it.

Oh, yes. So it's absolutely a portfolio. But I think like an investment portfolio, it depends what you're optimizing for. And it depends on the stage of the company. So your risk tolerance is going to depend on the stage of the company. It's going to depend on if you're optimizing for growth or profitability or whatever it might be. So it is a portfolio.

Oh, yes. So it's absolutely a portfolio. But I think like an investment portfolio, it depends what you're optimizing for. And it depends on the stage of the company. So your risk tolerance is going to depend on the stage of the company. It's going to depend on if you're optimizing for growth or profitability or whatever it might be. So it is a portfolio.

Oh, yes. So it's absolutely a portfolio. But I think like an investment portfolio, it depends what you're optimizing for. And it depends on the stage of the company. So your risk tolerance is going to depend on the stage of the company. It's going to depend on if you're optimizing for growth or profitability or whatever it might be. So it is a portfolio.

I think that you should assume if you're doing things right, you should assume the majority of your bets are going to fail. Which is why I always believe that velocity is probably more important than getting things perfect. But it is a spectrum. You could do some really well-controlled, rigorous experiments, and it's going to be incredibly academic.

I think that you should assume if you're doing things right, you should assume the majority of your bets are going to fail. Which is why I always believe that velocity is probably more important than getting things perfect. But it is a spectrum. You could do some really well-controlled, rigorous experiments, and it's going to be incredibly academic.

I think that you should assume if you're doing things right, you should assume the majority of your bets are going to fail. Which is why I always believe that velocity is probably more important than getting things perfect. But it is a spectrum. You could do some really well-controlled, rigorous experiments, and it's going to be incredibly academic.

And you're going to learn something, but it might take you a year to say something conclusive. Or you can just run a bunch of experiments at an incredibly high velocity and it's kind of sloppy. And similarly, you might not learn anything because you made a bunch of mistakes or didn't fully think through how you'd measure something. So you kind of have to balance it.