I've written about this before on the blog, but one of my qualms about architecture school was that it was too often taboo to talk about business and money. Why? Talking about and understanding the realities of the world doesn't have to mean that you're compromising on good design. Constraints are often good for design innovation. Similarly, I've always felt that personal finance should feature more prominently in schools at an early age. It should be considered a basic life skill.

In any event, I came across this tweet thread last night by Naval Ravikant talking about how to get rich (without getting lucky). It's from 2018, but the lessons -- and there are many -- obviously haven't changed. (For those of you who may not be familiar, Naval was the co-founder of AngelList and was an early stage investor in companies like Uber, Twitter, and Opendoor.)

When you see a headline like this it's perfectly normal for your bullshit radar to go off. (In fact, it is one of his points.) But this thread is not bullshit. It's about building wealth. Owning equity instead of renting out your time. Working hard. Taking a long view. Leveraging your time and skills. Understanding compound interest. Partnering with people of integrity. Being accountable. And becoming the best at what you do because you're pursuing genuine curiosity (among many other great points).

Here are a couple of his tweets. But I would encourage you to have a full read.

Architect Sheena Sharp, of Coolearth Architecture, tweeted something interesting out today:

Improving this would be good. And it is the same gripe that I had with architecture school when I was there. Why is it taboo to talk about money and the market? Why must design exist, in many instances, within a vacuum?

I can appreciate the value in not always constraining yourself with the status quo. To innovate, you have to stretch. And sometimes, or perhaps oftentimes, the best ideas initially seem dumb. It's important to have room to experiment and tinker.

But eventually, reality does matter. Plans that look good on paper, may not be suitable for the market. Constraints are a big part of what makes the city building industry so rewarding. Planning is hard. Building is hard. Getting consensus is hard. It's all incredibly difficult and you have to be creative.

The really elegant solutions usually need to weave across and through many different objectives and stakeholders. And so in my view, the more you can empathize with those other constraints, the more elegant your solution will be. Knowing more is good.

I've written about this before on the blog, but one of my qualms about architecture school was that it was too often taboo to talk about business and money. Why? Talking about and understanding the realities of the world doesn't have to mean that you're compromising on good design. Constraints are often good for design innovation. Similarly, I've always felt that personal finance should feature more prominently in schools at an early age. It should be considered a basic life skill.

In any event, I came across this tweet thread last night by Naval Ravikant talking about how to get rich (without getting lucky). It's from 2018, but the lessons -- and there are many -- obviously haven't changed. (For those of you who may not be familiar, Naval was the co-founder of AngelList and was an early stage investor in companies like Uber, Twitter, and Opendoor.)

When you see a headline like this it's perfectly normal for your bullshit radar to go off. (In fact, it is one of his points.) But this thread is not bullshit. It's about building wealth. Owning equity instead of renting out your time. Working hard. Taking a long view. Leveraging your time and skills. Understanding compound interest. Partnering with people of integrity. Being accountable. And becoming the best at what you do because you're pursuing genuine curiosity (among many other great points).

Here are a couple of his tweets. But I would encourage you to have a full read.

Architect Sheena Sharp, of Coolearth Architecture, tweeted something interesting out today:

Improving this would be good. And it is the same gripe that I had with architecture school when I was there. Why is it taboo to talk about money and the market? Why must design exist, in many instances, within a vacuum?

I can appreciate the value in not always constraining yourself with the status quo. To innovate, you have to stretch. And sometimes, or perhaps oftentimes, the best ideas initially seem dumb. It's important to have room to experiment and tinker.

But eventually, reality does matter. Plans that look good on paper, may not be suitable for the market. Constraints are a big part of what makes the city building industry so rewarding. Planning is hard. Building is hard. Getting consensus is hard. It's all incredibly difficult and you have to be creative.

The really elegant solutions usually need to weave across and through many different objectives and stakeholders. And so in my view, the more you can empathize with those other constraints, the more elegant your solution will be. Knowing more is good.