6 ms·

Another "if i can do it, so can you" story. Fuck that message , I am never going to be a billionaire and you won't be either. And it isn't for a lack of talent,

by mempko 12y ago

Another "if i can do it, so can you" story. Fuck that message , I am never going to be a billionaire and you won't be either. And it isn't for a lack of talent, or effort.

beachstartup 12y ago
> I am never going to be a billionaire and you won't be either. i'm pretty sure at least one or two billionaires read HN, so, keeping in mind the audience, you're probably wrong.
- sanoli 12y ago
  one or two out of how many? That's like Usain Bolt saying "if I can break the 100 WR, so can you" in a forum where Asafa Powell also hangs out.
  - beachstartup 12y ago
    no, what gp is saying is "i'll never be usain bolt so why would i ever want to be a runner?"
- onion2k 12y ago
  While he's 'wrong' in the strictest sense that there might be someone reading who'll go on to make billions, anyone reading that comment and thinking "I will be!" is much more likely to be wrong. The chance of one person in a pool of thousands becoming a billionaire is a great deal more likely than any individual making it happen, even though both are very unlikely. So probabilistically he's right.
  - gambiting 12y ago
    You can't win Tour de France if you don't start cycling. With his attitude there is no point in getting on the bike in the first place, because probabilistically it's unlikely you will ever win, right?
    - onion2k 12y ago
      I think the rational is more like "You can't win the Tour De France, so stop worrying about that goal because it's essentially unattainable, and do something ambitious-but-achievable instead."
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      If your only positive payoff point from cycling is "win the Tour de France", yes, you are almost certainly better off doing something else. OTOH, if more modest acheivements would justify the investment of time and money and winning the Tour de France would be a crowning, but not necessary to justify the effort, acheivement, sure, start cycling...
joshmlewis 12y ago
Not with that attitude you won't. A sarcastic but true anecdote.
patio11 12y ago
There are literally more billionaires on HN than people in the US who could write "Axiomatic Characterization of Ordinary Differential Cohomology." Apparently some folks are motivated to strive towards those statuses. Not quite my cup of tea, but I wouldn't discourage them or say those goals are flatly impossible.
- yarou 12y ago
  Nothing is impossible, but it comes down to probability. The probability that you will become a billionaire is quite slim. However, the probability that you can retire early or make close to a million or so is exponentially higher.
- nmrm 12y ago
  Do you mean originate and write the paper? Or do you mean just maybe understand the general essence of the paper's title, and understand major contributions after spending some time reading the paper? If the former, well... yes. That's probably true for almost all significant research, especially in mathematics. If the latter, I think you're probably wrong. And that's not to trivialize the work presented in the paper; if anything, the contrary -- the paper's actually quite well-written.
  - patio11 12y ago
    I meant "write" in the usual sense as it is applied to academic research.
    - nmrm 12y ago
      Counting up the number of people who could've written a given non-anonymous paper is pretty unheard of in academia afaik. The answer is usually politely assumed to be "exactly the number of authors". I've certainly never seen this behavior. So I'm not sure your answer is actually at all clarifying. Probably, and this is just a guess, neither Simons or Sullivan claim they could've written the paper alone. And it's certainly impossible to write essentially the same paper without plagiarizing. So probably there are either zero or two people who meet the "could've written this paper" criteria. So, why didn't you just say "there are more than zero/two billionaires who read HN"? Seems less round-about.
RogerL 12y ago
That was a throwaway sentence by the article's author, one that perplexes me, because it has nothing to do with the article or Dr. Simon. It is a complex combination of usually disparate skills, all at a very high level, that allows him to do what he does. I think Dr. Simon's point is not "if I can do it, so can you", but instead that the things we normally value, quickness in thought (see: whiteboard coding) really aren't the best or only measures of a person. The ability to organize talent in others, for example, or the willingness and curiosity to endless ponder on a question for a very long time, have payoffs. For example, Oppenheimer produced almost no new science after his early career, but his absolute brilliance at running research had an enormous impact on science, probably greater than his research. For some reason we don't seek out that kind of brain. I don't know why. Is it because they are rare? I don't think they are. I see 'clever' people, and then smart people. The clever people dominate the meetings, make decisions, but often times it is the person brooding over a problem that sees how to better advance efforts. Can't implement a smart pointer off the top of your head, under pressure, in a interview? No hire. (this is something the friggin' C++ committee got wrong, for years, with auto_ptr). I see Ph.Ds chasing stupid ideas that will never be practical. Smart is good, but so is pragmatic, and seeing the 'right' thing to do, and doing that. They are different kinds of intelligence; we need both, but often only shop for the former.
- FD3SA 12y ago
  I ponder this very question daily. I don't believe there are different types of intelligence. Instead, there are intelligent people who optimize single variables, and those who optimize multiple variables. The stupid interview questions about pointers involve just one variable, whereas a multi-variable (and higher order) analysis would consider what your company's business needs are and how software can help achieve them. The truth is, higher-order multi-variable thinking (also known as strategy) is far more critical to success than low level single variable thinking. However, due to the financial structuring of companies, there are very few positions for strategic thinkers. What it boils down to, is how many times you ask "Why". If you stop at one iteration, you won't get a very optimized solution. But if you keep going until you're questioning the definition of reality, you're at about the right place.
Zarathust 12y ago
He doesn't look like the average fellow. "Dr. Simons received his doctorate at 23; advanced code breaking for the National Security Agency at 26; led a university math department at 30; won geometry’s top prize at 37; founded Renaissance Technologies, one of the world’s most successful hedge funds, at 44; and began setting up charitable foundations at 56."
nmrm 12y ago
I agree with other comment authors that this attitude is unnecessarily negative. But at the same time, I'm always surprised when people claim these sorts of comments are self-defeatist. Unrealistic expectations can be just as psychologically and socially damaging as viewing the world through a billionaire-or-powerless-prole lens. Witness the periodic comments from founders whose failed start-ups ruin their marriages as well; if anything, unrealistic expectations for one's self can be even more damaging than self-re-enforced feelings of powerlessness. So it's not that this comment is healthy. It's just that many responses here are almost hilariously as unhealthy. It's like an alcoholic criticizing a chain smoker. (Okay, so now I'm the most unhealthy, most negative person in the thread :-( )

by mempko 12y ago

Another "if i can do it, so can you" story. Fuck that message , I am never going to be a billionaire and you won't be either. And it isn't for a lack of talent, or effort.

beachstartup 12y ago

> I am never going to be a billionaire and you won't be either. i'm pretty sure at least one or two billionaires read HN, so, keeping in mind the audience, you're probably wrong.

sanoli 12y ago
one or two out of how many? That's like Usain Bolt saying "if I can break the 100 WR, so can you" in a forum where Asafa Powell also hangs out.
- beachstartup 12y ago
  no, what gp is saying is "i'll never be usain bolt so why would i ever want to be a runner?"
onion2k 12y ago
While he's 'wrong' in the strictest sense that there might be someone reading who'll go on to make billions, anyone reading that comment and thinking "I will be!" is much more likely to be wrong. The chance of one person in a pool of thousands becoming a billionaire is a great deal more likely than any individual making it happen, even though both are very unlikely. So probabilistically he's right.
- gambiting 12y ago
  You can't win Tour de France if you don't start cycling. With his attitude there is no point in getting on the bike in the first place, because probabilistically it's unlikely you will ever win, right?
  - onion2k 12y ago
    I think the rational is more like "You can't win the Tour De France, so stop worrying about that goal because it's essentially unattainable, and do something ambitious-but-achievable instead."
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    If your only positive payoff point from cycling is "win the Tour de France", yes, you are almost certainly better off doing something else. OTOH, if more modest acheivements would justify the investment of time and money and winning the Tour de France would be a crowning, but not necessary to justify the effort, acheivement, sure, start cycling...

joshmlewis 12y ago

Not with that attitude you won't. A sarcastic but true anecdote.

patio11 12y ago

There are literally more billionaires on HN than people in the US who could write "Axiomatic Characterization of Ordinary Differential Cohomology." Apparently some folks are motivated to strive towards those statuses. Not quite my cup of tea, but I wouldn't discourage them or say those goals are flatly impossible.

yarou 12y ago
Nothing is impossible, but it comes down to probability. The probability that you will become a billionaire is quite slim. However, the probability that you can retire early or make close to a million or so is exponentially higher.
nmrm 12y ago
Do you mean originate and write the paper? Or do you mean just maybe understand the general essence of the paper's title, and understand major contributions after spending some time reading the paper? If the former, well... yes. That's probably true for almost all significant research, especially in mathematics. If the latter, I think you're probably wrong. And that's not to trivialize the work presented in the paper; if anything, the contrary -- the paper's actually quite well-written.
- patio11 12y ago
  I meant "write" in the usual sense as it is applied to academic research.
  - nmrm 12y ago
    Counting up the number of people who could've written a given non-anonymous paper is pretty unheard of in academia afaik. The answer is usually politely assumed to be "exactly the number of authors". I've certainly never seen this behavior. So I'm not sure your answer is actually at all clarifying. Probably, and this is just a guess, neither Simons or Sullivan claim they could've written the paper alone. And it's certainly impossible to write essentially the same paper without plagiarizing. So probably there are either zero or two people who meet the "could've written this paper" criteria. So, why didn't you just say "there are more than zero/two billionaires who read HN"? Seems less round-about.

RogerL 12y ago

That was a throwaway sentence by the article's author, one that perplexes me, because it has nothing to do with the article or Dr. Simon. It is a complex combination of usually disparate skills, all at a very high level, that allows him to do what he does. I think Dr. Simon's point is not "if I can do it, so can you", but instead that the things we normally value, quickness in thought (see: whiteboard coding) really aren't the best or only measures of a person. The ability to organize talent in others, for example, or the willingness and curiosity to endless ponder on a question for a very long time, have payoffs. For example, Oppenheimer produced almost no new science after his early career, but his absolute brilliance at running research had an enormous impact on science, probably greater than his research. For some reason we don't seek out that kind of brain. I don't know why. Is it because they are rare? I don't think they are. I see 'clever' people, and then smart people. The clever people dominate the meetings, make decisions, but often times it is the person brooding over a problem that sees how to better advance efforts. Can't implement a smart pointer off the top of your head, under pressure, in a interview? No hire. (this is something the friggin' C++ committee got wrong, for years, with auto_ptr). I see Ph.Ds chasing stupid ideas that will never be practical. Smart is good, but so is pragmatic, and seeing the 'right' thing to do, and doing that. They are different kinds of intelligence; we need both, but often only shop for the former.

FD3SA 12y ago
I ponder this very question daily. I don't believe there are different types of intelligence. Instead, there are intelligent people who optimize single variables, and those who optimize multiple variables. The stupid interview questions about pointers involve just one variable, whereas a multi-variable (and higher order) analysis would consider what your company's business needs are and how software can help achieve them. The truth is, higher-order multi-variable thinking (also known as strategy) is far more critical to success than low level single variable thinking. However, due to the financial structuring of companies, there are very few positions for strategic thinkers. What it boils down to, is how many times you ask "Why". If you stop at one iteration, you won't get a very optimized solution. But if you keep going until you're questioning the definition of reality, you're at about the right place.

Zarathust 12y ago

He doesn't look like the average fellow. "Dr. Simons received his doctorate at 23; advanced code breaking for the National Security Agency at 26; led a university math department at 30; won geometry’s top prize at 37; founded Renaissance Technologies, one of the world’s most successful hedge funds, at 44; and began setting up charitable foundations at 56."

nmrm 12y ago

I agree with other comment authors that this attitude is unnecessarily negative. But at the same time, I'm always surprised when people claim these sorts of comments are self-defeatist. Unrealistic expectations can be just as psychologically and socially damaging as viewing the world through a billionaire-or-powerless-prole lens. Witness the periodic comments from founders whose failed start-ups ruin their marriages as well; if anything, unrealistic expectations for one's self can be even more damaging than self-re-enforced feelings of powerlessness. So it's not that this comment is healthy. It's just that many responses here are almost hilariously as unhealthy. It's like an alcoholic criticizing a chain smoker. (Okay, so now I'm the most unhealthy, most negative person in the thread :-( )