Understanding is a Poor Substitute for Convexity (2012) [pdf]

Heuristics to maximize antifragility translated as lessons for a startup:

Heuristic 1: Minimize the cost of experimentation. You can do this by limiting yourself to experiment you can easily implement, i.e. MVPs that you can launch in 1-2 months

Heuristic 2: Try to maximize the number of experiments you can do. Let's say you have 18 months runway, and 2 months per experiment. You should focus on trying out 9 ideas / mini-pivots / features in these 18 months. You should focus more on the number of experiments to run than the outcome of the experiments.

Heuristic 3: Keep your optionality. For instance, it's better not to get locked into a contract with a large enterprise early on, since this will limit your possibilities.

Heuristic 7: Keep it simple. Narratives lead to complex solutions. Simple solutions work best.

if you wonder what this is

> author: Nassim Nicholas Taleb

> Something central is missing in historical accounts of scientific and technological discovery. The discourse and controversies focus on the role of luck as opposed to teleological programs (from telos, "aim"), that is, ones that rely on pre-set direction from formal science. This is a faux-debate: luck cannot lead to formal research policies; one cannot systematize, formalize, and program randomness. The driver is neither luck nor direction, but in the convexity of payoffs, a simple mathematical property that has lied hidden from the discourse, and the understanding of which can lead to precise research principles and protocols.