9 ms·

Projection and Tall Poppy Syndrome. Also there's extra incentive to tear down anyone with multiple successes, as they're a constant reminder that success isn't

by memish 4y ago

Projection and Tall Poppy Syndrome. Also there's extra incentive to tear down anyone with multiple successes, as they're a constant reminder that success isn't all due to luck.

Jerrrry 4y ago
>constant reminder that success isn't all due to luck. this is the crux of it. If he isn't just lucky, than that pushes one's own perils from misfortune to the realm of a lack of self-actualization and agency. Hard work makes you much more lucky, and that oxymoron is a hard pill for the "unfortunate" masses to swallow. No one wants to admit to not working hard; they want to push the responsibility to (mis)fortune.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Hard work is necessary, but not sufficient. One also needs the audacity to do things everyone else says are impossible - like making a new car company from scratch, or reusable rockets - something NASA has failed at for 60 years. (The space shuttle had to be essentially rebuilt after every mission, the boosters were thrown away, the concept was a dead-end from the start.)
  - bumby 4y ago
    This misunderstands the differences in how NASA is managed and constrained. It has inefficiency built in as a feature, not a bug. E.g., NASA cannot build a major program with an assembly line mentality. The need to spread their work out across multiple constituencies to ensure continued support. Ever wonder why major NASA centers are in key political states like Florida, California, Texas, and Ohio?
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      No argument there. Socialism doesn't work very well.
      - bumby 4y ago
        Unless you're Musk, who gets the taxpayers to fund his risk. What's the saying? It's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor?
        avmich 4y ago
        Yeah, this is way off. By the forth attempt of Falcon-1 flight Musk was rather low on money and pretty high on risk. And no taxpayer funding yet. Downvote; go learn.
        bumby 4y ago
        Except Musk himself has said they were hours away from bankruptcy before NASA's contract had come through after that fourth launch. Regardless, their early business model hinged largely on securing federal contracts i.e. taxpayer funds is literally what they used to mitigate their risk. Also, when they lose govt payloads, the govt (i.e. taxpayers) shoulder most of the risk because they are self-insured. That means SpaceX gets to take bigger risks because they don't have to pay for them through the typical privatized mechanisms of risk mitigation like insurance. >Downvote; go learn. You might benefit from learning a bit from the HN Guidelines regarding discourse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        avmich 4y ago
        > You might benefit from learning a bit from the HN Guidelines regarding discourse. Yes, I might :) . Just went with existing practice, not with guidelines. Will try to do better next time :) . > Except Musk himself has said they were hours away from bankruptcy before NASA's contract had come through after that fourth launch. That's exactly what I'm talking about. I think you're proving my point - your "Unless you're Musk, who gets the taxpayers to fund his risk. What's the saying? It's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor?" says that Musk didn't risk his own money developing Falcon-1, and almost lost. Remember Falcon-5? That was SpaceX approach to relatively slowly conquering the market in case NASA won't give them contracts. But NASA did, and Falcon-5 went to history, and Falcon-9 got full steam ahead. > Also, when they lose govt payloads, the govt (i.e. taxpayers) shoulder most of the risk because they are self-insured. That means SpaceX gets to take bigger risks because they don't have to pay for them through the typical privatized mechanisms of risk mitigation like insurance. SpaceX happily serves commercial customers. And commercial customers are happily served by SpaceX. And US government wants its own share of cheap and reliable - comparatively - launches, so SpaceX gets their orders too. Will you say anybody dealing with US government rides on the backs of taxpayers? Do you understand that you're wrong with your socialism and capitalism?
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  His success isn't all due to luck, he has genuine skills. But his success isn't all due to skill, either. Someone with the same brain and no seed money from Daddy would have been far less successful. > "We were very wealthy. We had so much money at times we couldn’t even close our safe,” [said Elon's father] adding that one person would have to hold the money in place with another closing the door. “And then there’d still be all these notes sticking out and we’d sort of pull them out and put them in our pockets.”
  - dhedberg 4y ago
    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1005593651219582977 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1005593651219582977: > More background: I arrived in North America at 17 w $2000, a backpack & a suitcase full of books. Paid my own way thru college. Dropped out of Stanford Eng/Phys grad school w $110k in college debt. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1211064937004589056 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1211064937004589056 > We started Zip2 with ~$2k from me plus my overclocked home-built PC, ~$5k from my bro & ~$8k from Greg Kouri (such a good guy — he is greatly missed). > My Dad provided 10% of a ~$200k angel funding round much later, but by then risk was reduced & round would’ve happened anyway.
    - iudqnolq 4y ago
      As a general principle I don't credit that kind of statement by that kind of person. This is because every time I've looked into one of them in depth it was very misleading. That kind of rich person generally misunderstands the question and misses significant support. Edit: For example, while he did work on a farm to pay for college that farm was owned by his Mom's cousin. Working for family is generally a significant advantage. Edit2: Having a wealthy childhood has enduring benefits even if the money doesn't last. For example, it significantly increased his chance of having access to a computer at age 12, which probably had an enduring impact on his coding skills. I'm not saying that means he didn't work hard and isn't smart. I am saying that it's telling he thinks that kind of thing didn't also contribute.
      - dhedberg 4y ago
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Successful people make their own luck. For example, going to tech conferences is making your own luck, because it's there that tech companies can find you. (In fact, tech companies sponsor conferences often for the express purpose of finding talent.) Remember "Field of Dreams"? "Build it and they will come?" That's typical hollywood bullshit advice. You've got to proactively market something, i.e. make your own luck.
  - mek6800d2 4y ago
    > Remember "Field of Dreams"? "Build it and they will come?" That's typical hollywood bullshit advice. Apparently you don't. Costner's character heard a voice saying, "Build it and he will come", referring to his father. So you took this as personal advice, albeit "bullsh!t" advice. More power to you ...

by memish 4y ago

Projection and Tall Poppy Syndrome. Also there's extra incentive to tear down anyone with multiple successes, as they're a constant reminder that success isn't all due to luck.

Jerrrry 4y ago

>constant reminder that success isn't all due to luck. this is the crux of it. If he isn't just lucky, than that pushes one's own perils from misfortune to the realm of a lack of self-actualization and agency. Hard work makes you much more lucky, and that oxymoron is a hard pill for the "unfortunate" masses to swallow. No one wants to admit to not working hard; they want to push the responsibility to (mis)fortune.

WalterBright 4y ago
Hard work is necessary, but not sufficient. One also needs the audacity to do things everyone else says are impossible - like making a new car company from scratch, or reusable rockets - something NASA has failed at for 60 years. (The space shuttle had to be essentially rebuilt after every mission, the boosters were thrown away, the concept was a dead-end from the start.)
- bumby 4y ago
  This misunderstands the differences in how NASA is managed and constrained. It has inefficiency built in as a feature, not a bug. E.g., NASA cannot build a major program with an assembly line mentality. The need to spread their work out across multiple constituencies to ensure continued support. Ever wonder why major NASA centers are in key political states like Florida, California, Texas, and Ohio?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    No argument there. Socialism doesn't work very well.
    - bumby 4y ago
      Unless you're Musk, who gets the taxpayers to fund his risk. What's the saying? It's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor?
      - avmich 4y ago
        Yeah, this is way off. By the forth attempt of Falcon-1 flight Musk was rather low on money and pretty high on risk. And no taxpayer funding yet. Downvote; go learn.
        bumby 4y ago
        Except Musk himself has said they were hours away from bankruptcy before NASA's contract had come through after that fourth launch. Regardless, their early business model hinged largely on securing federal contracts i.e. taxpayer funds is literally what they used to mitigate their risk. Also, when they lose govt payloads, the govt (i.e. taxpayers) shoulder most of the risk because they are self-insured. That means SpaceX gets to take bigger risks because they don't have to pay for them through the typical privatized mechanisms of risk mitigation like insurance. >Downvote; go learn. You might benefit from learning a bit from the HN Guidelines regarding discourse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        avmich 4y ago
        > You might benefit from learning a bit from the HN Guidelines regarding discourse. Yes, I might :) . Just went with existing practice, not with guidelines. Will try to do better next time :) . > Except Musk himself has said they were hours away from bankruptcy before NASA's contract had come through after that fourth launch. That's exactly what I'm talking about. I think you're proving my point - your "Unless you're Musk, who gets the taxpayers to fund his risk. What's the saying? It's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor?" says that Musk didn't risk his own money developing Falcon-1, and almost lost. Remember Falcon-5? That was SpaceX approach to relatively slowly conquering the market in case NASA won't give them contracts. But NASA did, and Falcon-5 went to history, and Falcon-9 got full steam ahead. > Also, when they lose govt payloads, the govt (i.e. taxpayers) shoulder most of the risk because they are self-insured. That means SpaceX gets to take bigger risks because they don't have to pay for them through the typical privatized mechanisms of risk mitigation like insurance. SpaceX happily serves commercial customers. And commercial customers are happily served by SpaceX. And US government wants its own share of cheap and reliable - comparatively - launches, so SpaceX gets their orders too. Will you say anybody dealing with US government rides on the backs of taxpayers? Do you understand that you're wrong with your socialism and capitalism?
iudqnolq 4y ago
His success isn't all due to luck, he has genuine skills. But his success isn't all due to skill, either. Someone with the same brain and no seed money from Daddy would have been far less successful. > "We were very wealthy. We had so much money at times we couldn’t even close our safe,” [said Elon's father] adding that one person would have to hold the money in place with another closing the door. “And then there’d still be all these notes sticking out and we’d sort of pull them out and put them in our pockets.”
- dhedberg 4y ago
  https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1005593651219582977 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1005593651219582977: > More background: I arrived in North America at 17 w $2000, a backpack & a suitcase full of books. Paid my own way thru college. Dropped out of Stanford Eng/Phys grad school w $110k in college debt. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1211064937004589056 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1211064937004589056 > We started Zip2 with ~$2k from me plus my overclocked home-built PC, ~$5k from my bro & ~$8k from Greg Kouri (such a good guy — he is greatly missed). > My Dad provided 10% of a ~$200k angel funding round much later, but by then risk was reduced & round would’ve happened anyway.
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    As a general principle I don't credit that kind of statement by that kind of person. This is because every time I've looked into one of them in depth it was very misleading. That kind of rich person generally misunderstands the question and misses significant support. Edit: For example, while he did work on a farm to pay for college that farm was owned by his Mom's cousin. Working for family is generally a significant advantage. Edit2: Having a wealthy childhood has enduring benefits even if the money doesn't last. For example, it significantly increased his chance of having access to a computer at age 12, which probably had an enduring impact on his coding skills. I'm not saying that means he didn't work hard and isn't smart. I am saying that it's telling he thinks that kind of thing didn't also contribute.
    - dhedberg 4y ago
WalterBright 4y ago
Successful people make their own luck. For example, going to tech conferences is making your own luck, because it's there that tech companies can find you. (In fact, tech companies sponsor conferences often for the express purpose of finding talent.) Remember "Field of Dreams"? "Build it and they will come?" That's typical hollywood bullshit advice. You've got to proactively market something, i.e. make your own luck.
- mek6800d2 4y ago
  > Remember "Field of Dreams"? "Build it and they will come?" That's typical hollywood bullshit advice. Apparently you don't. Costner's character heard a voice saying, "Build it and he will come", referring to his father. So you took this as personal advice, albeit "bullsh!t" advice. More power to you ...