4 ms·

While this is all very true, it seems much more than just excessively cynical to me. There were lots of folks who could have taken the path he took. He had the

While this is all very true, it seems much more than just excessively cynical to me. There were lots of folks who could have taken the path he took. He had the foresight to see that Computer Science was where interesting things were going to happen at a time when so much of the Western Intelligentsia was not terribly positive about “tech.” I definitely remember the tone of the NYTimes around this sort of thing. It took some real moving against the grain to be positive about the potential that tech had, in the timeframe that this investment happened. It took a lot to even get to be in his position. We were not at all making fat six-figures back then.

eternalban 3y ago
The 90s were not tech hostile. That's a very strange take and yes I was there as well. And no, NYTimes was and is not representative of Western "Intelligentsia" (God help us), much less the subset that was and remains quite keenly focused on technology. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/cisco-buys-granite-systems/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/cisco-buys-granite-s... Do you really think people like Andy Bechtolsheim and David Cheriton give an F what NYTimes thinks of investing in technology, or that it was "moving against the grain" (???) for a Stanford CS professor to invest in his bright young things? However I agree with you regarding the "luck" business. I believe most, though not all, people who are seen as lucky (or even see themselves as lucky) are simply those that take advantage of opportunity. Many of us (raises hand) are either oblivious to opportunity or have mastered the art of squandering them. Then we complain about being unlucky or how others are "so lucky".
- skeeter2020 3y ago
  I don't get your timeline; he pursued a field that was not very popular, specifically in academia, in the 70's. That was definitely against the grain.
  - eternalban 3y ago
    Looks like I misread GP (thought ref was to the investment period). Why do some smart people go into obscure fields. Who knows, there are so many variables. One of my absolute favorite cs geeks is John Backus. Do you know how he got into computing in the '40s? He was walking down the street and liked the look of the street level display of the IBM office and walked in and began his career in computing. And granted, he was a unique and somewhat strange bird, but that is one of the variables mentioned. I honestly don't think people like him really pay attention to what the liberal arts crowd ("intelligentsia" /g) thinks about technology.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
And so did thousands of others. It’s luck. I’ve been around long enough to see who gets “success” and it seems to be a pretty random walk within certain groups, and those who take multiple chances “At bat” are more “lucky.” So yeah sure you have to work hard to get into the game but again even that is largely chance based on your upbringing. As it happens rich kids are the ones who get more chances at bat cause they have fall backs etc..

eternalban 3y ago

The 90s were not tech hostile. That's a very strange take and yes I was there as well. And no, NYTimes was and is not representative of Western "Intelligentsia" (God help us), much less the subset that was and remains quite keenly focused on technology. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/cisco-buys-granite-systems/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/cisco-buys-granite-s... Do you really think people like Andy Bechtolsheim and David Cheriton give an F what NYTimes thinks of investing in technology, or that it was "moving against the grain" (???) for a Stanford CS professor to invest in his bright young things? However I agree with you regarding the "luck" business. I believe most, though not all, people who are seen as lucky (or even see themselves as lucky) are simply those that take advantage of opportunity. Many of us (raises hand) are either oblivious to opportunity or have mastered the art of squandering them. Then we complain about being unlucky or how others are "so lucky".

skeeter2020 3y ago
I don't get your timeline; he pursued a field that was not very popular, specifically in academia, in the 70's. That was definitely against the grain.
- eternalban 3y ago
  Looks like I misread GP (thought ref was to the investment period). Why do some smart people go into obscure fields. Who knows, there are so many variables. One of my absolute favorite cs geeks is John Backus. Do you know how he got into computing in the '40s? He was walking down the street and liked the look of the street level display of the IBM office and walked in and began his career in computing. And granted, he was a unique and somewhat strange bird, but that is one of the variables mentioned. I honestly don't think people like him really pay attention to what the liberal arts crowd ("intelligentsia" /g) thinks about technology.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

And so did thousands of others. It’s luck. I’ve been around long enough to see who gets “success” and it seems to be a pretty random walk within certain groups, and those who take multiple chances “At bat” are more “lucky.” So yeah sure you have to work hard to get into the game but again even that is largely chance based on your upbringing. As it happens rich kids are the ones who get more chances at bat cause they have fall backs etc..