The thing I am most improved at at 31 vs. 17 is satisficing or half-assing anything unimportant and non-core (but doing it quickly, and ideally with as little ongoing involvement as possible), and focusing on what is actually core.<p>aka pick your battles.<p>And, relatedly, only fixing problems as they become necessary to solve vs. trying to do everything in the order of how interesting it is, or how difficult. A lot of problems just go away if you're successful, and almost all problems go away if you fail to complete earlier goals.<p>aka "I'll burn that bridge when I come to it"
Things I am worse at at 55 vs. 25: the 50 yard dash.<p>Things I am better at at 55 vs. 25: everything else.<p>Seriously.<p>Magic Johnson (great American basketball player) once described the difference of being a world class athlete at 30 vs. 20: you have to be a whole lot smarter about how you use your body and recover when competing with younger people.<p>We programmers OTOH get the best of both worlds: the ability to work smarter against a physical and mental landscape that doesn't degrade nearly as fast as a world class athlete.<p>Frankly, when it comes to work, I can't think of a single thing I "used to do better", not creativity, not work habits, not personal habits, not physical or mental toughness.<p>I believe that programming, like running, is one of those things where the performance curve can remain flat until retirement, providing you take care of yourself. I'll let you know if it does.
At 31, I've found that I've had sufficient opportunities to learn from the experience of screwing up to screw up less than in my 20s. I'm also fairly certain that the difference between success and failure is not screwing up enough for it to kill you.
It's interesting, I know a few early twenties startup founders (plus just a lot of college aged people) and very few have the arrogance that you claim to have had. In fact most follow the majority of your advice without having read your post, although that doesn't make it any less valid.<p>But what I'm really trying to ask, is I'm wondering if in ten years the maturity of the average young founder has changed. Are the people who start tech startups at 21 a different type of people than those who started them in the previous bubble? What changed? Where did the arrogance go? Or am I just hanging out with the wrong crowd?
When I was young I had an astonishingly good memory, and I could keep a remarkable amount of information in my head, so I never really had to write anything down. One wise manager warned me to be careful about relying too much on my strengths, so I did put effort into being more organized and to keep better records. I also worked on being more systematic, creating mini-project plans for everything I do. Now that I'm 47, I'm really glad I put in that effort.<p>Ummm, what was I saying? Sorry, I forgot. ;-)
"So it turns out that getting older isn’t all that bad. Sure, people say that 30 is the new 25 (or is it the new 18? I can’t keep up)."<p>Ahem... well based on the fact that we're seeing "startup advice from the ripe old age of 30", I'd say it's more like 30 is the new 60. And my experience in the Valley would seem to reinforce this. :-)
Being risky without betting the farm.<p>Nothing wrong with betting the farm at 21 & single.<p>Now, 27 & married, I've found that I'm much better at taking <i>calculated risks</i> without betting the farm.