4 ms·

It's interesting how Woz and Jobs represent polar opposites on this topic with Jobs being very "the end justifies the means" type of person. > Finding things t

It's interesting how Woz and Jobs represent polar opposites on this topic with Jobs being very "the end justifies the means" type of person. > Finding things to be grateful for in the midst of hardship — like your loved ones or good health — can shift your brain into a more optimistic mindset and help you overcome those challenges, Wozniak added. I guess this is what it all boils down to. The default human setting is to be always unhappy, wanting more, but it's a never ending cycle with little satisfaction. Step out of the hamster wheel, appreciate what you have and live in the moment.

b112 2y ago
Sorry to slap this on your comment, but it seems a good place to put it. We don't know who Jobs or Woz are. At best, even most people in the field are using 3rd or 5th hand information. Quotes from Jobs or Woz don't show even the tiniest real glimpse into who a person is. Stories about persons, especially those with significant media presence, are often tailored, and invariably seen through the optics of the author of the article. Certainly, anyone who has been through an interview knows that what they say is cut, altered, quoted in partial context, etc. Only people who have actually worked with Jobs and Woz know them. And even then, they often only know them at work. A brief interjection into a work day once a month isn't "knowing someone" either. Sitting in a room of 1000 people for a company wide meeting isn't knowing them. My point is, these sorts of deep thoughts aren't something we can gauge from 2nd party discussions about someone. You need to know a person, personally, to actually be able to gauge what they actually believed. I've always been sort of... sad that so much of the world looks at people from so far away, and then takes stock in what they hear/gleam. Quotes from figures religious, from every religion, are a popular theme here. "Some guy said something 2000 years ago", filtered through a half dozen translations, and church dogma, are taken as if a person had known the person for 20 years. Meanwhile, we literally haven't a clue what was said in such cases. Yet the same is true of all hearsay strewn about all such figures. It's just word snippets taken out of context, of a single hour in a person's life. For example, if I asked anyone here the same question 10 years apart, would the answer be the same? Would the response even remotely resemble the prior? If the answer is "yes", then the topic isn't complex, or the person hasn't learned anything in their life. So to this I would say, irregardless of how many dislike Job's work ethics re: employee interaction, what would a 70 year old Jobs say? And say in person, without being "on"? Or worried about a quote in the media, where single words uttered could shatter or change the image of a cult icon?
- imiric 2y ago
  > You need to know a person, personally, to actually be able to gauge what they actually believed. I mean, sure, but at the same time these were public figures and we have ample evidence of what they said, and how they acted. Whether they were putting up a persona or not is irrelevant, as we can only go by whatever someone tells us, and by how they behave. Besides, people can have different personas even among people closest to them. Since we can never know the truth, it's easiest to assume that what someone says aligns with what they think. The historic record is powerful in this way, and the reason why historical figures become myths and legends. Humans are story tellers after all, and once we were able to record stories for future generations, it transformed our culture and catapulted our progress as a civilization. We don't need to "know" someone to learn from their beliefs and ideas.
- perilunar 2y ago
  > We don't know who Jobs or Woz are. This being HN, I reckon there are people here who knew Jobs and Woz personally.
  - b112 2y ago
    Context counts. And you're actually making my point, about quoting people (where myself, or Jobs or Woz) out of context. My very next sentence: At best, even most people in the field are using 3rd or 5th hand information. See the "most" there? Context counts. The media is far worse than a forum such as this, where at least my words are shown. A reporter will let someone speak for 10 minutes, then quote one sentence completely out of context.
    - perilunar 2y ago
      If someone on HN who knew someone Jobs or Woz personally tells you something about them it is only 2nd hand, not "at best" 3rd or 5th hand information. If you watch video of them talking, or read their writing (or know them personally) then it is 1st hand. It's fairly easy to get 1st and 2nd hand info about a contemporary figure, so I would suggest most interested people are not using 3rd or 5th hand info. Maybe the general public is.
ta1243 2y ago
> appreciate what you have and live in the moment. It's always easy for people who have everything to say that, they're not the ones lying in bed at night watching roaches climb the wall with no dad to phone and stop it all.

b112 2y ago

Sorry to slap this on your comment, but it seems a good place to put it. We don't know who Jobs or Woz are. At best, even most people in the field are using 3rd or 5th hand information. Quotes from Jobs or Woz don't show even the tiniest real glimpse into who a person is. Stories about persons, especially those with significant media presence, are often tailored, and invariably seen through the optics of the author of the article. Certainly, anyone who has been through an interview knows that what they say is cut, altered, quoted in partial context, etc. Only people who have actually worked with Jobs and Woz know them. And even then, they often only know them at work. A brief interjection into a work day once a month isn't "knowing someone" either. Sitting in a room of 1000 people for a company wide meeting isn't knowing them. My point is, these sorts of deep thoughts aren't something we can gauge from 2nd party discussions about someone. You need to know a person, personally, to actually be able to gauge what they actually believed. I've always been sort of... sad that so much of the world looks at people from so far away, and then takes stock in what they hear/gleam. Quotes from figures religious, from every religion, are a popular theme here. "Some guy said something 2000 years ago", filtered through a half dozen translations, and church dogma, are taken as if a person had known the person for 20 years. Meanwhile, we literally haven't a clue what was said in such cases. Yet the same is true of all hearsay strewn about all such figures. It's just word snippets taken out of context, of a single hour in a person's life. For example, if I asked anyone here the same question 10 years apart, would the answer be the same? Would the response even remotely resemble the prior? If the answer is "yes", then the topic isn't complex, or the person hasn't learned anything in their life. So to this I would say, irregardless of how many dislike Job's work ethics re: employee interaction, what would a 70 year old Jobs say? And say in person, without being "on"? Or worried about a quote in the media, where single words uttered could shatter or change the image of a cult icon?

imiric 2y ago
> You need to know a person, personally, to actually be able to gauge what they actually believed. I mean, sure, but at the same time these were public figures and we have ample evidence of what they said, and how they acted. Whether they were putting up a persona or not is irrelevant, as we can only go by whatever someone tells us, and by how they behave. Besides, people can have different personas even among people closest to them. Since we can never know the truth, it's easiest to assume that what someone says aligns with what they think. The historic record is powerful in this way, and the reason why historical figures become myths and legends. Humans are story tellers after all, and once we were able to record stories for future generations, it transformed our culture and catapulted our progress as a civilization. We don't need to "know" someone to learn from their beliefs and ideas.
perilunar 2y ago
> We don't know who Jobs or Woz are. This being HN, I reckon there are people here who knew Jobs and Woz personally.
- b112 2y ago
  Context counts. And you're actually making my point, about quoting people (where myself, or Jobs or Woz) out of context. My very next sentence: At best, even most people in the field are using 3rd or 5th hand information. See the "most" there? Context counts. The media is far worse than a forum such as this, where at least my words are shown. A reporter will let someone speak for 10 minutes, then quote one sentence completely out of context.
  - perilunar 2y ago
    If someone on HN who knew someone Jobs or Woz personally tells you something about them it is only 2nd hand, not "at best" 3rd or 5th hand information. If you watch video of them talking, or read their writing (or know them personally) then it is 1st hand. It's fairly easy to get 1st and 2nd hand info about a contemporary figure, so I would suggest most interested people are not using 3rd or 5th hand info. Maybe the general public is.

ta1243 2y ago

> appreciate what you have and live in the moment. It's always easy for people who have everything to say that, they're not the ones lying in bed at night watching roaches climb the wall with no dad to phone and stop it all.