Some content simplifies the problems to such a high degree, that this is more a game of "guess what I wanted you to answer" than anything else.
Eg "Your only senior developer knows the entire code. He just asked for a 200% raise or he leaves."
- Pay
- Fire and hire 2 juniors
- Give equity
I chose give equity and it was "wrong" because they turned out to be a "bad founder". How would I even know that? I hired them in the first place right? And 200% of what? Do I have money to pay them? Am I a startup that is able to pay them or is paying going to risk the entire company?
PS: the "right" answer was "hire 2 junior developers" btw
The questions and answers are all LLM-generated. Not even human curated, just dumped on your face straight from LLM. What do you expect? Of course they feel shallow.
This is a case study of why LLM-based NPC dialogue isn't getting huge traction in gamedev world, despite unlimited replayability in theory.
Slightly off topic, but I am continually perplexed by so many adhering to this archaic idea that memorizing and regurgitating information is "learning."
The issue in this context is that there are very few "right" or "wrong" answers in business (there are some) but the vast majority of the decisions you will make in business are pros/cons and weighing the best option at the time. And what works for one business will not work for another.
I've always found quizzes and tests to be a giant waste of time, largely because they have you spend time trying to guess what the "teacher" or material wants you to say rather than what's actually beneficial or useful to what you're trying to accomplish.
A better alternative is to give "projects." Not busywork, but something specific you can do that can actually help you take steps toward launching or growing a business. (Not worksheets, something you can actually use).
Beyond all of this, the information isn't really valuable anyway unless it's coming from someone who has build numerous successful businesses and can provide insight into which pieces they found valuable and which they didn't.
Insight is always way more valuable than conventional wisdom, especially in the realm of business.
I agree that memorising things isn’t learning, but I think it’s generally understood that it is a critically important step in learning.
In technical subjects you need immediate recall of a lot of different things to be able to move onto more advanced topics.
In the humanities like history and written analytical topics like this, I would argue that memorisation of past situations etc is supposed to be the groundwork that you begin to grow your own critical thinking from. It’s not expected that you slavishly apply identical copies of what you’ve learned, they are just examples
Funny, I ran into a marketing advice section. Every single piece of advice would cause me to insta close the site and go somewhere else if used to sell me something.
But now I know where those idiots that want you to sign up for a waiting list come from...
As an engineer/user, I also hate popups, waiting lists, and "urgency."
They feel manipulative.
But as a business owner looking at the dashboard, I see that removing them drops conversion by 40%.
The simulation is designed to test "Market Reality" vs "Personal Taste."
The goal is to see if you can swallow that pill to optimize the P&L, or if you stick to your principles and risk lower margins.
I've been on the site for 10m, and I'm loving it. I find the interface quite confusing. I'm getting value from the theory tidbits, and the scenarios. The simulation was confusing and i just noped out. I'd say the UI is a bit too overdone
Thanks for investing 10 minutes! Hearing that the theory and scenarios provide value is huge for me.
I suspected the UI might be too "loud." It’s a delicate balance between style and usability, and I might have pushed the brutalism too far.
Regarding the Simulation "nope out" moment — was it simply unclear what to do (lack of buttons/direction), or was the screen just too overwhelming with numbers?
As someone who made websites in the geocities days, it's amusing to me that one of the tell-tale signs of a Gemini-built website is a MARQUEE! I genuinely love that the marquee tag is making a come-back due to what I can only imagine was someone on the Google team who loves it too and decided to put that into the system prompt when websites are requested.
I miss the era when the web was raw, weird, and unpolished. Modern UI feels too sanitized and corporate.
The "Neo-Brutalist" label is just a convenient modern excuse to bring back the fun chaos of the Geocities days without looking outdated. Glad it hit the nostalgia nerve!
I couldn't tell they replied to me with AI (it didn't read like it did to me, but I could be wrong).
But even if they did, one thing I'm sympathetic to is that English is not everyone's first language. Again, I don't know if that applies here, but it's a good reason that some might want to run their comments through an LLM. I don't think there should be a blanket rule on this.
I don't see the link between the website and your description above. The website is some startup advice + multichoice quizzes... what are we supposed to be clicking on to get the 'business simulator' etc.?
As an aside, I think the font sizes and spacing would be better if much smaller/more dense.
The whole UI is a mess IMO. Words put on new line while 40% is still available on a macbook 16'.
One letter of the second title is put on a new line as well in "Transformation".
Looked through 3-4 articles. The content is rather shallow and written in a way that wants to be 'different' and edgy but does not convey any confidence to me.
For a text-based business simulator, i'd make the text far easier to read. I'm finding it to be a little to fast, with a lot of eye strain. There's a couple of techniques, including making sure that your text isn't completely black.
I'd look a little more into some of the design strategies, including smoother scrolling for text, better typography design, colors that are easier to read and more focus on the content itself.
Especially if you expect someone to read 20 minutes for an article. Just take a bit of a refresher on techniques for web readability!
I spent 1 minute and couldn't configure out how to use it. I clicked the first CTA. Then on the next page I clicked the first CTA. It has some progress bar that says 'decrypting' but then nothing else.
I like the concept, but density of the text and awkward UX are keeping me from engaging deeper.
There should be one (and only one) obvious button to advance the flow at all times. For instance:
* I took the “test” before realizing the topics were clickable.
* after getting a test question right at the end of a section, my “reward” was another wall of text explaining the question I’d just gotten right. Confusing and off-putting.
Have been having fun on here for some 10 minutes now. Not interested in the gamification, but I like the flash-card-esque, short lessons and the interactive tests.
> The Conflict: If your content doesn't build an asset, it's just an expense. You are a hamster on a wheel.
> The Truth: Content is a "Digital Real Estate." Every piece of content should either lower your CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost) or increase your LTV (Lifetime Value).
Usual AI over-confident bollocks. There are multiple reasons to post consistently beyond just these simplified reasons.
A legacy taxi firm faces extinction from ride-share apps. Instead of lobbying for regulations or cutting fares, they pivot to 'Executive Mobile Offices,' equipping luxury vans with high-speed Wi-Fi and desks for traveling executives. They stop fighting for general transport to create a new category.
[A] Lower fares to undercut ride-share apps
[B] Lobby the government for stricter industry laws
[C] Launch 'Executive Mobile Offices' for productivity
[D] Upgrade current fleet for better fuel efficiency
You might notice that there is no question. We have a case study, and then four multiple-choice "answers". Answers to what, we're not sure.
When there is a question, this format is the same thing you'd find in a textbook, except that the questions in a textbook have been chosen to be instructive and these questions haven't. Why is this beneficial? Content generation means you can generate a large number of questions of varying quality levels. But you only ask one, which removes your only theoretical advantage over a textbook, while imposing severe downsides.
For material that starts with "features don't matter", dynamic question generation sure feels like it was intended to help the marketing team rather than the user.
3. The market simulator reports "missed sales due to low stock" and "staff could not process orders". I find this annoying; if my staff are saturated, I can't be missing any sales due to low stock. It is admittedly useful to have perfect information about how many sales I could make with more staff.
After the "stock" bar is full, I can continue to produce more stock.
The only way to produce stock is to click a button that produces one stock. This should be fixed.
The event 'market downturn: demand collapsed' lasted for one day. This seems unreasonable. Maybe the unit of time should be months.
Does the math feel balanced?
The simulation feels extremely simplistic. If you have unmet demand, hire more workers. If you have idle workers, produce more stock. If you have excess stock, boost ads.
Can a scenario arise where it's not obvious what you should do?
-----------------
There is a typo, "encaging", in one of the early lessons.
I tried the "initial drill" and part of the "finance and capital one" and the content is rubbish.
The content is simplistic and makes sweeping assertions, the correct answer to most questions is "insufficient data".
Its very easy to guess the answer they want (I got it every single time) but in many cases I do not agree it is necessarily the right answer.
A text book would be better, and this convinces me of the value of studying business the conventional way.
OP, get someone who has a clue to write the content and the tests and then you might have something worthwhile
Some content simplifies the problems to such a high degree, that this is more a game of "guess what I wanted you to answer" than anything else.
Eg "Your only senior developer knows the entire code. He just asked for a 200% raise or he leaves."
- Pay
- Fire and hire 2 juniors
- Give equity
I chose give equity and it was "wrong" because they turned out to be a "bad founder". How would I even know that? I hired them in the first place right? And 200% of what? Do I have money to pay them? Am I a startup that is able to pay them or is paying going to risk the entire company?
PS: the "right" answer was "hire 2 junior developers" btw
The questions and answers are all LLM-generated. Not even human curated, just dumped on your face straight from LLM. What do you expect? Of course they feel shallow.
This is a case study of why LLM-based NPC dialogue isn't getting huge traction in gamedev world, despite unlimited replayability in theory.
Slightly off topic, but I am continually perplexed by so many adhering to this archaic idea that memorizing and regurgitating information is "learning."
The issue in this context is that there are very few "right" or "wrong" answers in business (there are some) but the vast majority of the decisions you will make in business are pros/cons and weighing the best option at the time. And what works for one business will not work for another.
I've always found quizzes and tests to be a giant waste of time, largely because they have you spend time trying to guess what the "teacher" or material wants you to say rather than what's actually beneficial or useful to what you're trying to accomplish.
A better alternative is to give "projects." Not busywork, but something specific you can do that can actually help you take steps toward launching or growing a business. (Not worksheets, something you can actually use).
Beyond all of this, the information isn't really valuable anyway unless it's coming from someone who has build numerous successful businesses and can provide insight into which pieces they found valuable and which they didn't.
Insight is always way more valuable than conventional wisdom, especially in the realm of business.
I agree that memorising things isn’t learning, but I think it’s generally understood that it is a critically important step in learning.
In technical subjects you need immediate recall of a lot of different things to be able to move onto more advanced topics.
In the humanities like history and written analytical topics like this, I would argue that memorisation of past situations etc is supposed to be the groundwork that you begin to grow your own critical thinking from. It’s not expected that you slavishly apply identical copies of what you’ve learned, they are just examples
Funny, I ran into a marketing advice section. Every single piece of advice would cause me to insta close the site and go somewhere else if used to sell me something.
But now I know where those idiots that want you to sign up for a waiting list come from...
It creates a fascinating paradox, doesn't it?
As an engineer/user, I also hate popups, waiting lists, and "urgency." They feel manipulative. But as a business owner looking at the dashboard, I see that removing them drops conversion by 40%.
The simulation is designed to test "Market Reality" vs "Personal Taste."
The goal is to see if you can swallow that pill to optimize the P&L, or if you stick to your principles and risk lower margins.
Both are valid choices in the game.
It doesn’t work on you, but apparently it works. I also don’t get it, and would nope out rather quickly.
I've been on the site for 10m, and I'm loving it. I find the interface quite confusing. I'm getting value from the theory tidbits, and the scenarios. The simulation was confusing and i just noped out. I'd say the UI is a bit too overdone
Thanks for investing 10 minutes! Hearing that the theory and scenarios provide value is huge for me.
I suspected the UI might be too "loud." It’s a delicate balance between style and usability, and I might have pushed the brutalism too far.
Regarding the Simulation "nope out" moment — was it simply unclear what to do (lack of buttons/direction), or was the screen just too overwhelming with numbers?
As someone who made websites in the geocities days, it's amusing to me that one of the tell-tale signs of a Gemini-built website is a MARQUEE! I genuinely love that the marquee tag is making a come-back due to what I can only imagine was someone on the Google team who loves it too and decided to put that into the system prompt when websites are requested.
Honestly? That is the real reason.
I miss the era when the web was raw, weird, and unpolished. Modern UI feels too sanitized and corporate.
The "Neo-Brutalist" label is just a convenient modern excuse to bring back the fun chaos of the Geocities days without looking outdated. Glad it hit the nostalgia nerve!
Please don't use AI for posting comments.
I couldn't tell they replied to me with AI (it didn't read like it did to me, but I could be wrong).
But even if they did, one thing I'm sympathetic to is that English is not everyone's first language. Again, I don't know if that applies here, but it's a good reason that some might want to run their comments through an LLM. I don't think there should be a blanket rule on this.
I don't see the link between the website and your description above. The website is some startup advice + multichoice quizzes... what are we supposed to be clicking on to get the 'business simulator' etc.?
As an aside, I think the font sizes and spacing would be better if much smaller/more dense.
10/10 shitpost, congratulations.
The whole UI is a mess IMO. Words put on new line while 40% is still available on a macbook 16'.
One letter of the second title is put on a new line as well in "Transformation".
Looked through 3-4 articles. The content is rather shallow and written in a way that wants to be 'different' and edgy but does not convey any confidence to me.
For those reasons, I'm out.
Ha, this made me think of Viznut's Micro$oft - Simulaattori [1].
[1] http://viznut.fi/demos/msdos/ (pick mssim.zip) or on Pouet https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=21174
For a text-based business simulator, i'd make the text far easier to read. I'm finding it to be a little to fast, with a lot of eye strain. There's a couple of techniques, including making sure that your text isn't completely black.
I'd look a little more into some of the design strategies, including smoother scrolling for text, better typography design, colors that are easier to read and more focus on the content itself.
Especially if you expect someone to read 20 minutes for an article. Just take a bit of a refresher on techniques for web readability!
I spent 1 minute and couldn't configure out how to use it. I clicked the first CTA. Then on the next page I clicked the first CTA. It has some progress bar that says 'decrypting' but then nothing else.
I like the concept, but density of the text and awkward UX are keeping me from engaging deeper.
There should be one (and only one) obvious button to advance the flow at all times. For instance:
* I took the “test” before realizing the topics were clickable.
* after getting a test question right at the end of a section, my “reward” was another wall of text explaining the question I’d just gotten right. Confusing and off-putting.
This is so vibe coded, I can't even look at it.
Have been having fun on here for some 10 minutes now. Not interested in the gamification, but I like the flash-card-esque, short lessons and the interactive tests.
Don’t care if it’s vibe coded, love the raw and unapologetic aesthetic
This wins the internet today. Amazing work!!!
The UI is hard on the eyes. I tried using it but felt overwhelmed by the design. Feels like I’m working with an IRS form.
Agree. The colors need to be pulled back from the 100% saturation, and the body font size is too small.
> The Conflict: If your content doesn't build an asset, it's just an expense. You are a hamster on a wheel.
> The Truth: Content is a "Digital Real Estate." Every piece of content should either lower your CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost) or increase your LTV (Lifetime Value).
Usual AI over-confident bollocks. There are multiple reasons to post consistently beyond just these simplified reasons.
I'm out. Might as well waste my time with crapgpt
I'm kind of amused by the presentation aspects.
The writing style is "Watch me jump a motorcycle over fifteen buses! AWESOME!"
The visual style is "DOS app".
-----------------
1. The lessons are written in a flashy, attention-catching way. They could stand to be drier.
2. The "simulation" involves one multiple-choice question. Well, up to one. Here's the combat simulation I was given from https://www.core-mba.pro/course/biz-101/lesson/l3 :
A legacy taxi firm faces extinction from ride-share apps. Instead of lobbying for regulations or cutting fares, they pivot to 'Executive Mobile Offices,' equipping luxury vans with high-speed Wi-Fi and desks for traveling executives. They stop fighting for general transport to create a new category.
[A] Lower fares to undercut ride-share apps
[B] Lobby the government for stricter industry laws
[C] Launch 'Executive Mobile Offices' for productivity
[D] Upgrade current fleet for better fuel efficiency
You might notice that there is no question. We have a case study, and then four multiple-choice "answers". Answers to what, we're not sure.
When there is a question, this format is the same thing you'd find in a textbook, except that the questions in a textbook have been chosen to be instructive and these questions haven't. Why is this beneficial? Content generation means you can generate a large number of questions of varying quality levels. But you only ask one, which removes your only theoretical advantage over a textbook, while imposing severe downsides.
For material that starts with "features don't matter", dynamic question generation sure feels like it was intended to help the marketing team rather than the user.
3. The market simulator reports "missed sales due to low stock" and "staff could not process orders". I find this annoying; if my staff are saturated, I can't be missing any sales due to low stock. It is admittedly useful to have perfect information about how many sales I could make with more staff.
After the "stock" bar is full, I can continue to produce more stock.
The only way to produce stock is to click a button that produces one stock. This should be fixed.
The event 'market downturn: demand collapsed' lasted for one day. This seems unreasonable. Maybe the unit of time should be months.
Does the math feel balanced?
The simulation feels extremely simplistic. If you have unmet demand, hire more workers. If you have idle workers, produce more stock. If you have excess stock, boost ads.
Can a scenario arise where it's not obvious what you should do?
-----------------
There is a typo, "encaging", in one of the early lessons.
Awesome content reads top notch
Looks fun, I’ll give it a try.
Design is slick. I like the sloganeering ticker tape. Wish it had dark mode.
This is cool.
But it trivializes a lot of stuff. Maybe go all in on the satire.
VC Bro simulator.
From this you'd think that you can just make up ideas all day and someone will give you money.
No.