4 ms·

> acting isn't really the field you wanna pursue if you want to make money That depends on the person. By the same token, software engineering isn’t the right

> acting isn't really the field you wanna pursue if you want to make money That depends on the person. By the same token, software engineering isn’t the right field for the average person (because most people don’t have the knack for coding), and yet some people find they do have that talent. A career is like dating, it’s mostly about finding a good fit, which means you also need to know yourself. Once you do, you may find a ‘bad’ niche is actually the right one for you.

7e 3y ago
No, it depends on supply and demand. Lots of people want to act. Lots of people want to make tools.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  And some are successful.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Which is irrelevant when evaluating a job market. Some are succesful in any crap market, where the chances are that most will go under or utterly fail, and where the conditions and average salaries and profit margins and such are attrocious. "Some are succesful" as some kind of retort basically translate to "I don't care about market conditions, I have confidence in myself and I know I'll be one of the succesful ones". Which is all well and good, but it doesn't say anything about one's chances of success, or that job market's behavior in general. Besides, historically it's what every fresh-eyed kid fresh off the bus from Nebraska, still waiting tables 20 years later, believed too.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      What I reject is evaluating the a job maket and completely ignoring the market participant, treating them as interchanagable. Sure, many people suffer from self delusion, but that doesnt mean that their individual characteristics are meaningless. If Jeff Bezos wanted to make tools, with all the power and money he has, he would have a much better chance than the average market participant.
coldtea 3y ago
>That depends on the person Yes, that's the fallacy/issue I was addressing. It's a market, and we try to evaluate it as a market, and talk about its characteristics. Not about whether "if you're the next Brad Pitt you'd make millions".
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I don't understand what fallacy you were addressing, honestly. I was not asserting that making tools is a large market that can support a larger number of players. In fact, I think I acknowledged that it was not. But I don't understand the relevance of that to my original point.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >I don't understand what fallacy you were addressing, honestly That a general statement about the statistical properties of something (in this case, the IT tooling market) is refuted by pointing out individual counter-examples. Those can only refuse absolute statements. Though I'm afraid this is not even a logical error. Instead it's a reading comprehension error, people read "there's no money in tooling", and think the author means "nobody made or makes money from selling tooling". The latter (absolute statement) is not what TFA means, nobody claimed is the case, and is totally irrelevant to what's discussed. As are counter-examples to it (everybody already knows there are counter-examples).

7e 3y ago

No, it depends on supply and demand. Lots of people want to act. Lots of people want to make tools.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
And some are successful.
- coldtea 3y ago
  Which is irrelevant when evaluating a job market. Some are succesful in any crap market, where the chances are that most will go under or utterly fail, and where the conditions and average salaries and profit margins and such are attrocious. "Some are succesful" as some kind of retort basically translate to "I don't care about market conditions, I have confidence in myself and I know I'll be one of the succesful ones". Which is all well and good, but it doesn't say anything about one's chances of success, or that job market's behavior in general. Besides, historically it's what every fresh-eyed kid fresh off the bus from Nebraska, still waiting tables 20 years later, believed too.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    What I reject is evaluating the a job maket and completely ignoring the market participant, treating them as interchanagable. Sure, many people suffer from self delusion, but that doesnt mean that their individual characteristics are meaningless. If Jeff Bezos wanted to make tools, with all the power and money he has, he would have a much better chance than the average market participant.

coldtea 3y ago

>That depends on the person Yes, that's the fallacy/issue I was addressing. It's a market, and we try to evaluate it as a market, and talk about its characteristics. Not about whether "if you're the next Brad Pitt you'd make millions".

JohnFen 3y ago
I don't understand what fallacy you were addressing, honestly. I was not asserting that making tools is a large market that can support a larger number of players. In fact, I think I acknowledged that it was not. But I don't understand the relevance of that to my original point.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >I don't understand what fallacy you were addressing, honestly That a general statement about the statistical properties of something (in this case, the IT tooling market) is refuted by pointing out individual counter-examples. Those can only refuse absolute statements. Though I'm afraid this is not even a logical error. Instead it's a reading comprehension error, people read "there's no money in tooling", and think the author means "nobody made or makes money from selling tooling". The latter (absolute statement) is not what TFA means, nobody claimed is the case, and is totally irrelevant to what's discussed. As are counter-examples to it (everybody already knows there are counter-examples).