A Quote by Elliott Smith

There's always that argument to make - that you're in better company historically if people don't understand what you're doing. — © Elliott Smith
There's always that argument to make - that you're in better company historically if people don't understand what you're doing.
When I was doing Goodenough, I'd hired a few people to work in my office, but then, toward the end of the '90s, I decided that this is not what I should be doing. I didn't want to make a big company and have to hire lots of people. I felt like I was better as an independent or as a solo operator. So I made the decision to finish everything and work alone just with an assistant or two. Although maybe there isn't the potential that there is in having a bigger company, it's good for me.
Good developers like seeing their products sell in large quantities. They enjoy the competition of doing a better job than the other company, especially if the other company has more people on the project and they're entrenched and people are saying that we don't have a chance of getting in there and... and doing well.
The notion that somehow or another they'll (Iran) put it in a picnic basket and hand it to some terrorist group is merely an argument that may be convincing to some people who don't know anything about nuclear weapons. I don't find that argument very credible, I'm not sure that people who make it even believe in it. But it's a good argument to make if you have no other argument to make. The fact of the matter is, Iran has been around for 3000 years, and that is not a symptom of a suicidal instinct.
If you hire only those people you understand, the company will never get people better than you are. Always remember that you often find outstanding people among those you don't particularly like.
My mother has always rooted for the underdog, so to speak. She has always been in support of uplifting historically marginalized and historically disenfranchised people.
The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better.
Our mantra has been, 'We will not buy a company unless we think the people that make up the company have a better job the day after the acquisition than before.'
People think that [I will leave Aladdin after Tony reward], but what they don't understand is that we actually enjoy what we are doing. This wonderful company that I work for has allowed me to do other things while I'm doing this.
When you are in a growth company, you have to really open people's eyes to the bigger possibilities so they think differently. Once they understand how to define success and what their role is in success, they make better decisions, and you can push decision-making down.
I think that we as a people are always prone to think about, well, tomorrow will be a better day. Well, why will it be a better day? And I think the more that we believe in doing things better, doing the right thing rather than hoping that that's going to happen, let's make it happen.
I've always wanted to help build a better society and build a better company, and I always wanted a healthy, vibrant company, a healthy, vibrant society. We take care of our people, we provide them with opportunity. But I've always believed business is here to serve your clients, your shareholders, your communities. If we do this well, everyone benefits. We have to do a good job for all of them.
I'm always trying to make movies that are better than the ones that we've made before. We don't always succeed at doing that by any means, but we're always trying to raise the stakes, raise the bar, make the movies better, and that's hard.
If I ran the whole place like it was my way or the highway, we would not be as good a company. I'm going to have mistakes - they'll be made on my watch and will embarrass me. But I'll also make sure the company learns from them so it can become a better company.
Often we're having an argument with something imaginary - a fixed idea of the "enemy" and the good. We need to get beyond that and actually develop a deep curiosity about people and systems and understand them better.
If you're always in the company of people who agree with you, you're going to think of people who don't agree with you as venal or stupid. I constantly tell my students that if they're in the company of people who always say "amen" to what you say, find other company. And that is the source of illiberalism, when you are unable to listen to someone who thinks differently. That's when democracies are in trouble.
I know to argue against our online lives seems like the argument of the grumpy, old Luddite novelist, but I really always try to make the argument from the perspective of personal pleasure.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!