4 ms·

I am afraid to be judgemental. > The article author hasn’t figured out that he got to where he is because he was lucky, not because he was special in some way.

I am afraid to be judgemental. > The article author hasn’t figured out that he got to where he is because he was lucky, not because he was special in some way. It seems like a lot to assume that suggests the author is not a fast technical learner and builder. > Hey author if you are reading this, try doing something positive like help people. Volunteer. Everything you have tried so far has been self-centered. That sounds like good advice for me, but not to the author. I sometimes follow orders from random people for fun, but I infer that the author does not. The author traveled off the paved path. Reality gave him with wealth and time, but unsatisfaction instead of satisfaction. His role is now to figure out a path back to satisfaction, perhaps it will be a short path or a long path, a common one or a one the world hasn't seen before.

lazide 2y ago
I think it’s the natural result of someone who has ‘won’ a game they have been obsessing about/that defined them. People often find a similar lack of purpose (albeit much, much shorter lived) after being engrossed in a book series, very hard video game, or any other pursuit. The big difference here, IMO, is this is a game that society is literally constructed around - for its own survival. The ‘rat race’ puts food on everyone’s table, provides care when we’re sick, defines what future our children can have (and if we can even have children) - even what rights we have (or don’t have) in many cases. Is it so surprising that having won that game, some people - often the ones most obsessed with it - struggle to figure out what is next?
sausagefeet 2y ago
> It seems like a lot to assume that suggests the author is not a fast technical learner and builder. Unless you think one can choose to be a "fast technical leaner and builder", then that is still luck.
- Chris2048 2y ago
  Then what is the antonym of luck? Sound like a tautology.
  - sausagefeet 2y ago
    I don't know! But I don't think that changes the argument very much. Unless one thinks that we can choose to be smart or a fast learner or have interests that happen to be lucrative, we should be very thoughtful about how we choose to reward people who are successful. This isn't a new or original idea, it's an old debate.
    - thegrimmest 2y ago
      There is an implied collectivism in your statements. The idea that "we choose to reward people who are successful" implies there is a collective with the legitimate authority to make such determinations. I reject this idea. Instead I propose that legitimate authority only exists to create a liberal ecosystem, not to meddle in the outcomes that ecosystem produces. A person's fortune (or misfortune) to be born with particular traits, into a particular childhood environment, is entirely their own. I see no source of legitimacy to redistribute that fortune to other people without explicit consent.
      - sausagefeet 2y ago
        This view makes no sense given any cursory view of history. What about European countries going to the Americas, taking people's land (with out consent) and gold (without consent) to enrich themselves? Or what about the relative success of any tribes in the Americas prior to Europeans showing up by defeating other tribes? At what arbitrary point would you like to start counting as to where we should start respecting this "consent"? Do you want to undo any previous actions or should we just take whatever arbitrary power structures we've landed on and start? C'mon, this is ridiculous. We live in a society which, by definition, requires multiple people participating. Your right to consent (or not) sometimes doesn't exist because society takes priority. There is no high philosophy here, it's just the reality of how things work. Get over it.
        thegrimmest 2y ago
        First of all, I'm not talking about international conflict, where the law of the jungle still effectively applies to this day. I'm talking about domestic liberalism, where ideas like the fundamental equality and the consent of the governed are held to be self-evident. If you disagree with these ideas then I suspect you will be intractable. > At what arbitrary point would you like to start counting There is no need to keep count. We are all born into this world with no possessions, and we all negotiate with those already here for everything we come to own. It is true that people and circumstances vary widely, but that doesn't provide legitimacy for one person's claim over another (equal) person's legitimate good fortune. > We live in a society which, by definition, requires multiple people participating It is exactly the nature of this participation which I am litigating. I hold that it should be maximally voluntary and consensual. The only justified violation of fundamental liberty is in defense of liberty itself. Drafting people into the army (effectively enslaving them) is justified in direct defense of the nation (not to attack eg. Vietnam). Redistributing legitimate (earned through consensual exchange) wealth by force simply doesn't pass this test. > There is no high philosophy here, it's just the reality of how things work. Get over it. Funnily enough this is the exact sort of reasoning has been used to rationalize the most horrific atrocities ever perpetrated.
wizzwizz4 2y ago
> It seems like a lot to assume that suggests the author is not a fast technical learner and builder. I'm a fast technical learner and builder. I will never be where this guy is, in part because most of my resources are going into keeping myself afloat. I live my life as though "luck" isn't a factor (what's the use in declaring defeat?), but it's certainly not merit that separates the rich from the poor.
dangus 2y ago
If he was a fast learner and thinker he would have figured out that DOGE is an illegal oligarchy scheme.
tw04 2y ago
> It seems like a lot to assume that suggests the author is not a fast technical learner and builder. There are a lot of really, really, really smart people who never become generationally wealthy. Generational wealth almost always includes either luck, or intentionally heading down a morally reprehensible path. You’ll have a tough time convincing me the guy who invented loom is smarter than or contributed more to mankind than Nikola Tesla. Which is probably a perfect example because Edison took the morally reprehensible path.
- boringg 2y ago
  Your examples are at the extreme end. You can be a fast technical learner or builder which does make you special but not be an inventor or someone who can grok science and systems similar to Tesla / Edison. Loom != DC or AC electricity its a helpful tool not transformational technology such as electricity.
  - tw04 2y ago
    Op said he got lucky, the response implied he didn’t. My example is extreme because the circumstances of making several hundred million dollars on a startup exit is EXTREMELY rare, and has far more to do with luck than skill.

lazide 2y ago

I think it’s the natural result of someone who has ‘won’ a game they have been obsessing about/that defined them. People often find a similar lack of purpose (albeit much, much shorter lived) after being engrossed in a book series, very hard video game, or any other pursuit. The big difference here, IMO, is this is a game that society is literally constructed around - for its own survival. The ‘rat race’ puts food on everyone’s table, provides care when we’re sick, defines what future our children can have (and if we can even have children) - even what rights we have (or don’t have) in many cases. Is it so surprising that having won that game, some people - often the ones most obsessed with it - struggle to figure out what is next?

sausagefeet 2y ago

> It seems like a lot to assume that suggests the author is not a fast technical learner and builder. Unless you think one can choose to be a "fast technical leaner and builder", then that is still luck.

Chris2048 2y ago
Then what is the antonym of luck? Sound like a tautology.
- sausagefeet 2y ago
  I don't know! But I don't think that changes the argument very much. Unless one thinks that we can choose to be smart or a fast learner or have interests that happen to be lucrative, we should be very thoughtful about how we choose to reward people who are successful. This isn't a new or original idea, it's an old debate.
  - thegrimmest 2y ago
    There is an implied collectivism in your statements. The idea that "we choose to reward people who are successful" implies there is a collective with the legitimate authority to make such determinations. I reject this idea. Instead I propose that legitimate authority only exists to create a liberal ecosystem, not to meddle in the outcomes that ecosystem produces. A person's fortune (or misfortune) to be born with particular traits, into a particular childhood environment, is entirely their own. I see no source of legitimacy to redistribute that fortune to other people without explicit consent.
    - sausagefeet 2y ago
      This view makes no sense given any cursory view of history. What about European countries going to the Americas, taking people's land (with out consent) and gold (without consent) to enrich themselves? Or what about the relative success of any tribes in the Americas prior to Europeans showing up by defeating other tribes? At what arbitrary point would you like to start counting as to where we should start respecting this "consent"? Do you want to undo any previous actions or should we just take whatever arbitrary power structures we've landed on and start? C'mon, this is ridiculous. We live in a society which, by definition, requires multiple people participating. Your right to consent (or not) sometimes doesn't exist because society takes priority. There is no high philosophy here, it's just the reality of how things work. Get over it.
      - thegrimmest 2y ago
        First of all, I'm not talking about international conflict, where the law of the jungle still effectively applies to this day. I'm talking about domestic liberalism, where ideas like the fundamental equality and the consent of the governed are held to be self-evident. If you disagree with these ideas then I suspect you will be intractable. > At what arbitrary point would you like to start counting There is no need to keep count. We are all born into this world with no possessions, and we all negotiate with those already here for everything we come to own. It is true that people and circumstances vary widely, but that doesn't provide legitimacy for one person's claim over another (equal) person's legitimate good fortune. > We live in a society which, by definition, requires multiple people participating It is exactly the nature of this participation which I am litigating. I hold that it should be maximally voluntary and consensual. The only justified violation of fundamental liberty is in defense of liberty itself. Drafting people into the army (effectively enslaving them) is justified in direct defense of the nation (not to attack eg. Vietnam). Redistributing legitimate (earned through consensual exchange) wealth by force simply doesn't pass this test. > There is no high philosophy here, it's just the reality of how things work. Get over it. Funnily enough this is the exact sort of reasoning has been used to rationalize the most horrific atrocities ever perpetrated.

wizzwizz4 2y ago

> It seems like a lot to assume that suggests the author is not a fast technical learner and builder. I'm a fast technical learner and builder. I will never be where this guy is, in part because most of my resources are going into keeping myself afloat. I live my life as though "luck" isn't a factor (what's the use in declaring defeat?), but it's certainly not merit that separates the rich from the poor.

dangus 2y ago

If he was a fast learner and thinker he would have figured out that DOGE is an illegal oligarchy scheme.

tw04 2y ago

> It seems like a lot to assume that suggests the author is not a fast technical learner and builder. There are a lot of really, really, really smart people who never become generationally wealthy. Generational wealth almost always includes either luck, or intentionally heading down a morally reprehensible path. You’ll have a tough time convincing me the guy who invented loom is smarter than or contributed more to mankind than Nikola Tesla. Which is probably a perfect example because Edison took the morally reprehensible path.

boringg 2y ago
Your examples are at the extreme end. You can be a fast technical learner or builder which does make you special but not be an inventor or someone who can grok science and systems similar to Tesla / Edison. Loom != DC or AC electricity its a helpful tool not transformational technology such as electricity.
- tw04 2y ago
  Op said he got lucky, the response implied he didn’t. My example is extreme because the circumstances of making several hundred million dollars on a startup exit is EXTREMELY rare, and has far more to do with luck than skill.