2 min lesson
The 90-second why-Cursor, then poke holes in it
Take "The 90-second why-Cursor, then poke holes in it" step by step, then finish with the result that proves it worked.
Step 1 of 2
The 90-second why-Cursor, then poke holes in itThree beats, specific to this charter
- 1The charter angle. You want to own the unit economics of a large-scale AI product where inference is the dominant COGS line, one of the rare TPM roles that's genuinely quantitative and finance-adjacent rather than Gantt-chart PM.
- 2The operator angle. You build the model and write the doc yourself. A flat, founder-engaged org with no thick management layer is where a hands-on operator who influences with prepared artifacts thrives, and that's the work you actually want.
- 3The mission angle. Genuine belief that AI-assisted coding is where software is going, said plainly. The intensity only reads as real when the belief under it is real.
"Most TPM roles are process and ceremony. This one is essentially owning the unit economics of a large-scale AI product where inference is the biggest COGS line. That's the quantitative, finance-adjacent work I'm best at and rarely get as a TPM. I want to build the cost models and capacity frameworks myself, in a flat org where the doc is the deliverable rather than a deck someone else executes. And I believe AI-assisted coding is the future, so getting its unit economics right is work I'd find meaningful, not just billable."
Have your peer attack the why-Cursor for genericness: "you could say that about any infra startup." The fix is concreteness. Name inference as the dominant COGS line, then a real Cursor session you ran and what you noticed about cost or latency. A specific observation from real sessions reads as genuine, while "I've used it twice" reads as thin.
Learn more
Optional practice