깨달음 리스트
All posts in 깨달음 리스트. Korean originals are linked until English translations are approved.
Small insights, lived experience, and lessons worth carrying forward.
- 진민성EN
Find the Use Before the Technology
Permalink & discussionIf I am not starting from a real use case, figuring out what to build is difficult. It is even harder when I start with technology for its own sake. Consider a hammer. It is relatively easy to make one when I know the job it must do: break a door or drive a nail into a wall. The use gives the tool a direction. Starting… Show more Show less
If I am not starting from a real use case, figuring out what to build is difficult. It is even harder when I start with technology for its own sake.
Consider a hammer. It is relatively easy to make one when I know the job it must do: break a door or drive a nail into a wall. The use gives the tool a direction.
Starting with technology sends me in another direction. I begin with the hammer’s materials, mechanics, shape, and manufacturing process. I can become very good at cutting the steel head and shaping the wooden handle, but I may lose sight of who needs the hammer and what problem it should solve. I can make components that look useful to a manufacturer while missing the manufacturer’s actual workflow.
To shape a hammer for a producer’s needs, imagination is not enough. I need to become a producer myself, or at least get close enough to experience the problem. Becoming a good producer also begins with solving problems around me.
A technical moat starts with use
The desire to become technically excellent and build infrastructure with a technical moat can remain an exciting and impressive idea unless I become a producer. If I find a problem while cutting a hammer head, I can improve that part even before I fully understand every use case. But a vague goal of mastering technology and turning it into infrastructure does not tell me which problems matter.
After studying many examples, I found that deep-tech infrastructure founders rarely began with infrastructure alone. They first sold products to consumers or other producers and encountered problems by producing something themselves. Those problems, combined with a view of the future, led them toward deeper technology and infrastructure. Even the insight that GPUs for transformers would become necessary must have come from a bottleneck discovered through actual use and production, like finding a flaw while shaping a hammer head.
What school teaches and what I must find myself
School is better at teaching the parts of the hammer in depth: materials engineering, how to shape the head, and how to build the handle. Entrepreneurs and investors can think about the hammer’s use and production pipeline, then hire people who understand the parts.
That is why it is difficult for genuinely valuable new products to emerge from school alone. I have to discover the use and define the problem myself.
Return to rapid product exploration
I tried to anchor my exploration in a technology I wanted to pursue and spend two weeks looking for its use. I wanted technology for its own sake. That approach made good ideas hard to find. I like black magic and feats of strength, but showing off the feat did not need to be the goal. There was a faster and better path.
The exploration was still valuable because I was able to verify for myself why a technology-first anchor did not work. Once I accepted that conclusion, my framework changed. I moved away from the vague belief that better AI meant I should spend six months on every difficult problem to become more productive.
If I want to work on deep tech and difficult problems, I should not start by shaping the hammer head without knowing its use. I should first decide what problem needs a hammer, then build several hammers for different uses in two-week or one-month experiments. Listening to people’s reactions and feedback matters more than defending the original technology anchor.
Think flexibly. Keep looking for a faster way.
- 진민성EN
Find the Use Before the Technology
Permalink & discussionAt the same time as what I am doing now, it is difficult to discover genuinely valuable problems when I approach things by thinking about technology first or by making technology for technology's sake. Let's use a hammer as an example. If I start with the purpose of solving a problem around me, I first think about wher… Show more Show less
At the same time as what I am doing now, it is difficult to discover genuinely valuable problems when I approach things by thinking about technology first or by making technology for technology’s sake. Let’s use a hammer as an example.
If I start with the purpose of solving a problem around me, I first think about where the hammer will be used. Because there are concrete uses, such as breaking down a door or driving a nail into a wall, it is relatively easy to make a hammer suited to that purpose.
But when I think about technology first, the approach changes. I begin with an engineering understanding of the hammer’s materials and mechanics, its structure and shape, and then think about how to improve the hammer head and make it more efficient. In this process, it is difficult to look at the hammer’s necessity and the user’s actual use from a broader perspective. Instead, I can become an expert who cuts the hammer’s steel better than anyone and precisely shapes its wooden handle. And those skills are also easy to sell to producers who want to use hammers for many purposes.
But there is a problem.
To make a hammer better suited to a producer’s use, imagination alone is not enough. I have to become a producer myself. And to become a good producer, I ultimately have to start by solving problems around me. In other words, my desire to become a technical expert and build infrastructure with a technical moat can remain nothing more than an attraction to technology that looks fun and impressive unless I become a producer myself.
Of course, technical problems can also be found while shaping a hammer head. Even without considering the hammer’s overall use, it is possible to create a solution that optimizes a specific problem discovered while cutting the steel. But until now, I had the vague goal and desire to dig into technology first and turn it into infrastructure.
Where Does Deep-Tech Infrastructure Begin? After researching countless cases, I found that many deep-tech infrastructure founders did not try to build the underlying technology itself from the beginning. They first made a hammer and sold it to consumers, or discovered problems while becoming producers themselves. They approached deep tech based on the technical bottlenecks and questions they encountered along the way. Even the future insight that an era would come when a dedicated GPU for Transformers would be needed, as in Etched, can ultimately be understood as a technical problem and vision of the future discovered while cutting the steel of a hammer head. In other words, a grand technical vision does not necessarily begin with technology in the abstract. It can begin with a problem discovered while making and using something real.
Technology Learned at School and Technology That Creates Real Value School is a place where we learn the technical elements that make up a hammer deeply and systematically, rather than thinking first about what the hammer is for. We learn the material science of the hammer and study academically and deeply how to shape the hammer head precisely and make the handle well. This is because entrepreneurs and capitalists who define the hammer’s use or build the pipeline that produces it do not need to understand every technical element themselves. They can hire people with deep expertise in each component and technology. In this structure, schools focus on training experts who can understand and improve specific technologies deeply. That is why it is difficult to create something new and materially valuable from what is learned at school alone. In the end, I have to think about and experience for myself where technology is actually needed, how it is used, and what problems it can solve.
The Conclusion from Two Weeks of Exploring Technology For the past two weeks, I explored by setting the technology I wanted to work on as an anchor first, then looking for its use or making technology for technology’s sake. I chose a technology I liked first and then thought about what problems could be solved with it. But looking back, this was an approach that made it difficult to discover good ideas. I have always liked technical challenges that other people cannot easily do, like black magic or a feat of strength. But during those two weeks, by using technology as the anchor, I was thinking about doing a feat of strength for the sake of doing one. Even though there was a faster and better way that did not require such a feat. That does not mean the past two weeks were meaningless. I actually think they were meaningful. I wanted to set a topic with technology as the anchor, and at the same time I had a vague curiosity that made me want to verify for myself why that approach did not work well. By exploring various cases and thinking deeply, I reached a conclusion that I could verify and accept for myself, rather than simply accepting someone else’s advice. That is the biggest benefit I gained from those two weeks.
A Shift in Thinking: Make What Is Needed Before Difficult Technology Once this question was resolved, my thinking framework began to change. Until then, I had been overly absorbed in the idea of deep tech.
I thought that because AI had greatly increased productivity, I should now take on more difficult and complex problems. I also carried the vague assumption that it was natural to spend six months going deep on one difficult technology. But wanting to do deep tech and build difficult technology does not mean I must challenge the difficult thing from the beginning. There is no need to study the structure of a hammer head or develop a better way to cut steel when I do not even know where the hammer will be used. Before that, I need to think carefully about what use and need exist, and whether a hammer is needed at all.
Then it is more important to quickly make hammers for different uses in two-week or one-month cycles and hear the reactions and feedback of real users. Only by making something, using it, and offering it to other people can I learn what is needed and what is lacking. If I discover a problem that is difficult to solve with existing technology, it will not be too late to study the structure of the hammer head or dig deeply into better ways to cut steel. Technology that starts this way has a clear problem to solve, a real use, and a clear reason to build technical expertise and a moat.
This is not about giving up on deep tech. It is about changing the order in which I reach it. Instead of choosing the technology first and forcing myself to find its use, I should make something that is actually needed, discover technical problems, and build deep expertise and infrastructure while solving them. I do not need to choose a grand technical vision or a difficult problem right now. I can make something small but useful quickly, and use that experience to discover the next problem.
Let’s think flexibly. Let’s find a faster way.
- 진민성Updated:EN
Say What I Want Instead of Giving the Answer They Want
Permalink & discussionSay What I Want Instead of Giving the Answer They Want I should pay attention to the words that prompt my actions. When I follow someone else's question or explanation, I may end up giving the answer they want and taking an action I never intended to take. Repeat What I Want A quick and effective way to prevent this is… Show more Show less
Say What I Want Instead of Giving the Answer They Want
I should pay attention to the words that prompt my actions. When I follow someone else’s question or explanation, I may end up giving the answer they want and taking an action I never intended to take.
Repeat What I Want
A quick and effective way to prevent this is to state what I want clearly and confidently, without first centering the other person’s intentions or reaction. Instead of searching for the answer they want to hear, I can say what I actually want to say.
I Do Not Have to Persuade Them
What I want does not have to be perfectly logical. I do not need to persuade someone before I am allowed to express my wishes. I also do not have to answer their question logically. Instead of answering the question on its terms, I can state what I want and what I choose.
Rather than being pulled along by someone else’s words and constructing the answer they want, I can say what I want directly. I can use short statements such as “This is what I want” or “I am not going to answer that question” and repeat the same meaning. Explaining whether my words are logical enough comes after keeping hold of my own intention.
- 진민성Updated:EN
When Someone's Words Make Me Doubt Myself
Permalink & discussionWhen Someone's Words Make Me Doubt Myself Someone else's words can make me question myself. I may wonder whether I am mistaken or whether I am creating a problem simply because I do not know enough. But before accepting that doubt, I need to examine whether being pushed to distrust myself is healthy communication at al… Show more Show less
When Someone’s Words Make Me Doubt Myself
Someone else’s words can make me question myself. I may wonder whether I am mistaken or whether I am creating a problem simply because I do not know enough. But before accepting that doubt, I need to examine whether being pushed to distrust myself is healthy communication at all.
Do Not Treat Emotion as Evidence
When someone creates guilt, shame, or anxiety to shake my judgment, I can pause and question it. I need to distinguish between an emotion that helps me look at the facts and one that keeps me from making a reasonable request or speaking for myself.
I Cannot Begin Knowing Everything
I cannot begin with complete knowledge. Not knowing something does not mean I lose the right to ask for what is reasonable or to say what I need to say. I can make my own choices as long as I take responsibility for their consequences.
Change the Direction of Doubt
Instead of endlessly doubting myself because of someone else’s words, I can look at what those words make me feel and what choices they are preventing. I need to judge again through the facts I know and the standards I want to protect, rather than accepting someone else’s judgment as my own.
- 진민성EN
The Courage to Say No Without Guilt
Permalink & discussionI used to be weak in asserting my position. When I heard a new logical argument, I assumed it must be right and put the other person’s explanation ahead of my own intuition. I ended up living in directions suggested by other people without feeling that I was going where I wanted to go. I believed that a more logical ar… Show more Show less
I used to be weak in asserting my position. When I heard a new logical argument, I assumed it must be right and put the other person’s explanation ahead of my own intuition. I ended up living in directions suggested by other people without feeling that I was going where I wanted to go. I believed that a more logical argument automatically meant a better choice.
A book changed that view. Following my own feelings can also be a good judgment, and I have the right to say no. Refusing something does not necessarily create a problem. Even when my way of solving a problem does not look logical to others, I am allowed to choose how I respond.
Thinking only in logical terms can also mean drawing a boundary in advance: I will do only what I can fully understand. But solutions sometimes appear by chance in the parts I do not understand. I can widen what I am capable of by trying with an imperfect guess, learning from the process, and applying that learning to the next action.
Social and Organizational Frames
I had been considering organizational rules and morality more than I realized. At the same time, I wanted to break out of those frames and live freely. The book helped me see that many standards I accepted as obvious may simply be frames created by society and organizations.
It also helped me understand what gaslighting actually is. I am responsible for my feelings, but I have the right to feel upset. I need to distinguish questions and words designed to steer my emotions. The best way to do that is to look at myself with some distance and act according to what I actually feel.
This was happening more often than I thought in my close relationships. Attempts to make someone feel sorry or guilty appear in negotiations and persuasion too. To avoid being pulled in, I can explain what happened first and say what I will do differently in the future if there is a problem. It is enough to fulfill the part that is actually my responsibility. I can keep moving and improve through my mistakes.
The Freedom Zorba Showed
I recently read Zorba the Greek in a Bizcafe reading group. Zorba lives as he wants, says what he wants to say, and barely worries about other people’s opinions.
What impressed me most was that even in an employer–employee relationship, he was not completely trapped by the social frame. Usually the employer has the upper hand, and the more financially constrained an employee is, the harder it is to escape that frame. Zorba still tried to fulfill his responsibilities, but when the work went wrong, he spoke about it openly and moved on to finding a solution.
We call that living freely. Freedom is not avoiding responsibility. It is carrying what belongs to me while refusing to let a frame set by someone else replace my judgment.
Do Not Outsource Your Judgment to AI
AI can create a similar frame. It combines long answers and impressive-sounding words into conclusions that appear logical. If I become absorbed in the idea that AI is smarter and more intelligent than I am, I may hand over my responsibility and judgment instead of thinking and deciding by my own standards.
A social pattern in which people explain a post or decision by saying “AI told me to” is one example. It can be understood as outsourcing emotion and judgment. An AI answer can also become a frame that moves me.
I can use AI’s suggestions as input, but I must make the decision. I need to check what I feel and what I am willing to take responsibility for. I can choose and take responsibility even when I do not have a perfectly logical explanation.
Rights I Am Allowed to Have
Courtesy, rules, and morality are standards society creates so people can live together. They cannot replace all of my judgment. I have the right to:
- make my own decisions and take responsibility for the results
- refuse to listen to someone else and remain silent
- say no and change my mind
- avoid completely understanding another person
- be imperfect and make mistakes
- make requests and negotiate toward a better direction
- keep asserting my position and, sometimes, be stubborn
When something feels wrong, I do not want to express it passively and indirectly. I want to recognize what I feel and speak and act accordingly. I can trust myself. I will be responsible for the result.
The Courage to Say No Without Guilt did more than teach me how to refuse. It showed me a way to live freely and make decisions as the subject of my own life. It helped me a lot.
- 진민성Updated:EN
What to Decide Before the Next Project
Permalink & discussionWhat to Decide Before the Next Project I do not want to be only a researcher or an app developer. I want to define a technological direction and build a company that creates a new market around the technology and products it starts. The end goal is a platform that many people use, where revenue and competitive advantag… Show more Show less
What to Decide Before the Next Project
I do not want to be only a researcher or an app developer. I want to define a technological direction and build a company that creates a new market around the technology and products it starts. The end goal is a platform that many people use, where revenue and competitive advantage compound over time.
That means the decision in front of me is not a list of projects. It is the future I am willing to bet on for the long term. Projects can change quickly; the direction in which technology, users, and an ecosystem accumulate should not change casually.
The First Bet I Want to Test
The direction I most want to test is next-generation computing × human-computer interaction. Computing itself may change in form and execution, while the way people perceive information, make decisions, and act through computers may change with it.
This direction leaves room to go deep into hardware, embedded systems, runtimes, AI, and new interfaces. It may also offer a path to begin with a killer product that consumers can experience directly. This is not a final commitment. It is the hypothesis I want to try to disprove first.
There are related directions worth exploring as well:
- Next-generation computing: semiconductors, computer architecture, operating systems, compilers, and new devices
- Human augmentation and new interfaces: smart glasses, real-time multimodal experiences, spatial computing, and new UX
- Physical AI and autonomous systems: robotics, embedded systems, real-time control, and autonomous agents
- Energy and physical infrastructure: power electronics, energy storage, grids, and industrial control
- Self-evolving intelligence: continual learning, world models, autonomous learning, and verification-learning systems
Self-evolving intelligence could be an independent bet, but it could also become core technology that supports several of the directions above.
Technology Alone Does Not Compound
Starting early is not enough. I need an advantage that grows stronger over time.
Proprietary technology can create differences in performance, cost, reliability, or new capabilities. But it must connect to real customers, repeated use, revenue, and feedback. Shared layers such as SDKs, APIs, hardware, runtimes, and IP can then accumulate. An ecosystem moat begins when developer dependence, network effects, and switching costs emerge.
I want to keep asking three questions.
- Will this advantage remain after GPT-8? More than code generation itself, I need assets that endure: customer relationships, real performance, physical technology, distribution, operations, and ecosystems.
- Can this compete with big tech? Instead of confronting incumbents with the same resources, I should enter through an asymmetric wedge in a small market, build a distinct advantage, and expand from there.
- Do the technology and product reinforce each other? New technology can create a killer product, and product success can fund and support research on the core technology.
Moving from a Thesis to a Company
In the first 30 days, I will explore two or three candidates deeply: their technology, market, competitive structure, experts, and future changes. The goal is to state not only what I believe, but also what evidence would disprove that belief.
In the following 30 days, I will anchor in one industry, experiment and build directly, and investigate users and the market. The point is to learn whether I can genuinely immerse myself in the field and whether a product opportunity exists.
Between days 60 and 90, I will release a first product in the form that fits best: an app, developer tool, hardware product, or B2B product. The goal is to test whether people have a reason to use it and pay for it.
Over the long term, I will secure runway through revenue and investment, improve the core technology, and bring in the expertise that is needed. When there is an opportunity to expand from a product into a platform, I will invest in a structure where technology, users, revenue, and ecosystem reinforce one another.
The key is neither to wait until I become an expert before founding a company nor to build products without expertise. It is to accumulate expertise and unique technology while building products.
What to Let Go of Strategically
Rather than starting projects for every fashionable technology, I want projects that build assets under one thesis. Rather than treating implementation difficulty as a moat, I want an advantage competitors cannot easily reproduce. I do not want to keep research with no customer value or products that have no connection to the long-term goal.
Not everything should be discarded at the same speed. Projects and technical approaches can be stopped or changed quickly. Markets should be adjusted when the evidence demands it. A long-term thesis, however, should change only after enough disconfirming evidence accumulates.
The criterion I want to keep is one sentence:
Bet on a future that will matter in 10 to 20 years, survive by making what people want today, and compound the technical and business advantages required for the next stage.
If a project does not build toward that, I should be able to let it go even when it is enjoyable or appears to be working in the short term.