
Composing AI-native growth and product systems. VP of Growth @heyapupabove. Co-founded a $50M+ DTC brand. Writing The Compositor on Substack.
San Francisco, CA
Joined March 2009
- Tweets6.1K
- Following5.1K
- Followers4.5K
- Likes19.8K
justin • vp of growth retweeted
If you’re a marketer you’re in the most exciting moment of your lifetime
I feel like AI is enabling small groups of us to be full stack and unstoppable
Fantastic creators pushing the boundaries of content, ai funnels to build at the speed of light, most effective ad algorithms of all time
This is a rare moment to be involved in. Take advantage of it while you can.
justin • vp of growth retweeted
A retired NASA engineer who had worked on the Space Shuttle program for 25 years was hired by SpaceX at age 62. He described the first week as the most disorienting experience of his professional life.
At NASA, a design change required 3 meetings, 2 committees, a review board, and 6 to 18 months of documentation. At SpaceX, his new supervisor said "if it works, build it. If it doesn't, change it by Friday."
He sat at his desk after the first day and called his wife. He told her he felt like a man who had been swimming with ankle weights for 25 years and someone just cut them off. He could move. He could decide. He could build something in the morning and test it in the afternoon. The constraint that he had accepted as the nature of aerospace engineering turned out to be the nature of bureaucracy.
Within 6 months he had contributed to more design iterations than he had completed in his last 5 years at NASA. Not because he was working harder. Because the time between having an idea and testing the idea collapsed from months to hours. The same brain. The same knowledge. A different operating system.
He described a specific moment where he proposed a modification to a Raptor engine component. At NASA, the proposal would have entered a queue. At SpaceX, the modification was machined by the end of the day and tested by the following morning. He watched his idea become a physical object in 18 hours. At NASA, 18 hours would not have been enough to schedule the first meeting to discuss whether to schedule a meeting.
He told an interviewer: "I didn't get smarter when I went to SpaceX. I got faster. The intelligence was always there. The system was in the way."
The difference between SpaceX and NASA is not talent. NASA has extraordinary talent. The difference is the time between a thought and a test. SpaceX compresses it. NASA elongates it. The same engineer produces 10x more at SpaceX than at NASA because the bottleneck was never the engineer. It was the meetings about the meetings about the work.
Alexandr Wang 在谈到“如何拉开与 99% 人的差距”时,给出了极其朴素甚至残酷的答案:
顶层竞争根本不拼智商,拼的是极端执行力的非对称倾斜。
他的三条核心准则:
1. 绝对聚焦,压榨认知带宽: 绝大多数人的忙碌只是“低密度伪勤奋”。真正的专注是把全部精力砸在唯一的核心支点上,拒绝任何无关干扰。
2. 把“过度交付”做成护城河: 行业标准要求走 1 英里,你就走完 10 英里。当所有人都按合同完成 100% 时,常态化交付 200% 的人会直接卷走全部声誉与溢价。
3. 带靶向的超额输出,拒绝无目的内耗: 努力不是盲目自我感动,而是针对具体目标的持续过载测试。把每一次交付都当成生死决战来打。
商业世界最公平的一点在于:
聪明人到处都是,但能忍受极度枯燥并长期超额交付的人凤毛麟角。
执行力溢出,就是最暴力的护城河。
justin • vp of growth retweeted
A wise mentor once told me: "Before you play the game, study the winners. Before you build a company, study the founders who came before you. Before you write a book, study the authors you admire. Originality comes after apprenticeship, not before it."
justin • vp of growth retweeted
your competitive advantage is never going to be taste. anyone who dresses well has also worn wack fits. anyone who makes art has also made some bullshit. the real competitive advantage is your willingness to suck, to get embarrassed, to simply be willing to try.
justin • vp of growth retweeted
I’m in love with this sentence:
You need to be more afraid of wasting your life than embarrassing yourself.
4700 word labor of love. I've seen all the patterns and heard every story about in-house brand/creative studio teams.
This is my vision for where brand teams can go (and why I joined @tryramp).
Brand systems that behave like jazz. Brand as software.
justin • vp of growth retweeted
The people who can hold the whole system in their head are gonna run circles around everyone else. Been true forever, just way more obvious now.
xitter.cf/lennysan/status/207927…
My biggest takeaways from @Netflix's Chief Product and Technology Officer Elizabeth Stone:
1. Elizabeth believes that “systems thinking” is becoming the most important skill in the AI era. In engineering and product, this means people who can see across business domains and build the common capabilities that let many teams move quickly. In design, it means experience designers who create templates and design systems so that non-designers can ship work that stays coherent and on-brand. The underlying driver is velocity: when more people are doing more types of work at higher speed, you need to be good at building common scaffolding.
2. Systems thinking is learnable: zoom out one level from your specific problem. Given a task, step back one click—what bigger problem does this serve the business, will it scale across the product surface areas, should it become a platform capability? The companion habit: do your job in a way that helps your manager do theirs. This will force you to think about how all the pieces fit together.
3. Expect a storming phase before a forming phase. The role confusion people feel right now (“What is my job anymore?”) is the predictable middle of any transformative technology. Elizabeth’s advice: focus on high-quality source-of-truth data, guardrails on what ships, and constant internal reinforcement that humans own what they create.
4. The top AI labs converged on Netflix’s culture. High agency, high talent density, top-of-market pay, bottom-up thinking, fast experiments—the traits Lenny hears constantly from AI labs were in Netflix’s early culture deck. Elizabeth’s explanation: excellence comes from hiring exceptional people, trusting them to do great work, and holding them accountable.
5. Netflix’s culture is centered around building “excellence as an operating system.” High talent density, radical transparency, context not control, and the keeper’s test. These work together to create an environment of trust and accountability, without bureaucracy. But it’s also uncomfortable. It requires tolerating people making decisions you’d make differently, resisting the reflex to add process when things go wrong, and letting people carry the weight of their own choices. Elizabeth describes the hardest part as “being comfortable in that discomfort.”
6. The keeper’s test is as much about recognizing great people as it is about removing the wrong ones. The test—“If this person told me they were leaving, would I fight to keep them?”—is often cited in its difficult form: the moment you realize someone isn’t the right fit. But Elizabeth uses it predominantly as an entry point for honest performance conversations that are deeply positive. Most of the time the answer is “I would fight so hard to keep you,” which creates the opening to articulate strengths, discuss impact, and name what’s working. Good feedback hygiene needs a forcing function; the keeper’s test provides one.
7. Specialization is trending down—adaptable generalists are trending up. We’re shifting away from narrow stack-layer specialists (pure frontend, pure backend) toward people who can navigate fluidly across layers. The same logic applies to business domain knowledge: the mindset of “I’m a payments expert, full stop” is less valuable than “I know payments well enough and I’m willing to imagine what the future version of this looks like.” The meta-skill is learning to learn, not locking into a single lane.
8. Netflix’s approach to AI fluency is a universal principle, not a level-specific expectation. Rather than rewriting career ladders to specify what AI competence looks like at each level, Netflix added a single aspiration across all roles and levels: AI fluency. What fluency means varies by function and seniority, but the non-negotiable minimum is the same everywhere—an open-minded, experimental mindset, genuine curiosity, and comfort with ambiguity.
justin • vp of growth retweeted
Every overnight success is 5+ years looking like an idiot to all your friends and family, just to “get lucky” in year 6.
justin • vp of growth retweeted
Sequoia just mapped $1 TRILLION in services getting replaced by AI agents⚡
Already on autopilot:
▫️ Insurance brokerage: $140-200B
▫️ IT managed services: $100B+
▫️ Payroll & compliance: $50-70B
▫️ Accounting & audit: $50-80B
▫️ Paralegal / LPO: $36B
Next wave:
▫️ Supply chain & procurement: $200B+
▫️ Pharmacy back-office: $30B+
▫️ Wealth mgmt ops: $30B+
Their title says it all: "Services is the new software."
The safest seat in this shift is inside the companies building the agents, not the ones being replaced by them.
▫️ Sequoia portfolio companies hiring right now: jackandjill.ai/jobs/collecti…
▫️ Remote roles at the best VC-backed startups: jackandjill.ai/jobs/collecti…
Which one on this map surprises you most?
justin • vp of growth retweeted
When someone says "people are saying" or "someone told me you said," stop them. Ask which people. Ask who said it. Watch how fast the story falls apart. The third party is almost never real. They're using a ghost to deliver their own complaint. Name it and it loses power.
justin • vp of growth retweeted
As engineering, product, design, DS, etc. melt into a new kind of role, I was reflecting on what roles might look like in the future. For example, when I look at the Claude Code team I see what I think is five archetypes:
1. Prototyper: comes up with brand new ideas; churns out many ideas, most of which don't ship
2. Builder: quickly turns a prototype/idea into production-grade product/infra
3. Sweeper: cleans up the UI, simplifies the code and system, unships, optimizes performance
4. Grower: takes a product that has been built and iterates on it to improve Product-Market Fit
5. Maintainer: owns a mature system to make it secure, reliable, fast, and efficient as it scales
Many people span across 2 roles, and sometimes 3 roles. I also notice that these roles are not really tied to job function -- eg. across Anthropic, some designers match category 1, some 2, some 3; same for engineers, PM, DS.
A healthy team needs a mix of these, depending on the product:
- A product that is new and pre-PMF needs people that are strong at 1+2+3
- A product that is growing and has found PMF needs 2+3+4 and some 5
- A product that has strong PMF needs 3+4+5 and some 2
Maybe product roles of the future will look more like this, and less like the domain-specific roles of today?
New in Claude Design: it stays on brand with your design system across projects, lets you edit directly on the canvas, syncs with Claude Code, and connects to more of the tools you already use.


























