Miles Monroe

We built an automated setup to cut down on repetitive team tasks and speed things up. It handled basic cases fast, but the moment tiny exceptions popped up, it broke or got things wrong.

Instead of saving hours, our team now spends that time reviewing and fixing the automated outputs. It didn't solve the workload, it just moved the effort to a different step.

What rules do you follow to decide which processes stay manual versus which ones get automated?

I used to look at other founders doing cheap growth hacks and think I'd never run my project like that. Fast forward to today, and I ve cut prices and built messy features I vowed I d never touch, mostly out of fear of slow growth.

Some changes genuinely helped the business, but others just feel like I took the easy way out.

Where do you draw the line between adapting to the market and completely selling out on your core beliefs?

Strong claim, hear me out.

Every founder update reads the same now. "excited to share," emoji bullets, fake vulnerability about the rollercoaster. doesn't matter if it's real or not, it all sounds identical.

Noticed this hard while hiring. read every dm myself for a growth role. most were obviously ai-generated, same tone, zero thought put in. the ones that stood out were rough, specific, clearly written by someone who actually looked at the problem first.

Think the same thing's eating founder credibility. people used to trust a post because it sounded like someone actually figured something out.