I actually think the (quite nice) blog formatting might be partially at fault: whenever I read a paper, I expect a certain style of writing and ideas presented in a certain way. By presenting it visually as a paper and then using a casual blog style, my first thought is not "this blog post is okay" but rather "this paper is bad".
The faux-academic-paper style looks cool, but is a clearly worse reading experience. It's tolerable on a big screen. But on a small laptop it requires pointlessly scrolling up and down. On mobile, it's much worse.
A lesson declared in the document is "too slow iterating". But I think that's a symptom. I think the real lesson is that instead of building to the founder's vision of what's cool, you have to build for actual people and their actual needs. To do that well, you of course have test your hypotheses, which requires iteration. But the iteration itself is secondary; building the founder's fantasy iteratively can fail just at thoroughly as building it in one long go. Either way, it's self indulgence.
I'd say the blog format has the same build-what-I-think-is-cool flaw. It's more excusable in a personal website, of course. But I hope he learns this lesson before his next startup.
1) An intro starting what you want to discuss or accomplish
2) The body, or details
3) The conclusion, or summary
Effective communication starts with a brief explanation of your conclusions or points, then it goes into details.
0) an abstract.
Not everyone is in/from the USA. And not everyone cares about standards from the USA.
Communication can still be effective without following made up standards by one country.
My point was that his communication would be more effective if he did not follow that standard.