> I was civil, and I was marking the post for what it was. I've gone out of my way to explain my opposition to this charlantry and instead you saw it as an opportunity to paint me as unhinged, rather than merely concerned about the community.
I actually think you're sincere. At first, I thought you were just trolling - y'know, when you insult me personally without addressing any of the points in the article, I think that's kind of uncool.
But you just replied with your reasoning - if you want better writing on business and entrepreneurship from me, maybe I can do that. I'd like to write better. But can you be more specific than desiring more "Substance"?
What does more substance look like? More stories/anecdotes? Statistics? Context? More tactical stuff, like which terms of a contract are important to negotiate over and which aren't?
If you'd like me to step my game up, hey, maybe I can. I believe you're sincere about wanting a better community here, more resources for people to break from the corporate world and do their own thing. Me too. So, I'll listen to your feedback. What's more substantial writing look like to you?
I agree that his name calling has no place here. That said, there's a certain something about your site that leaves me non-plussed. The 'Victory.' bit seems kind of... hrm, I suppose I'd say 'cheesy', although I hope you don't take offense. I did like the article though: it really does seem like some people are money magnets.
"Whenever I compared myself to people similar to me, it wasn’t even close. I worked more, accomplished more, produced more, did more meaningful things, was traveling the world. I read more books, did more writing, was generally healthier and more disciplined, spent my time well. I was the top 1% for my age, and even better than that if you measured me against people from similar backgrounds."
>What's more substantial writing look like to you?
Here's a recent quote from IRC concerning this discussion, and this particular comment was aimed at your blog specifically.
19:54 < (name censored)> seems like a cheesy self-help blog
19:54 < (name censored)> 10 ways to get rich!!!!
Subject that said this is a brilliant embedded dev that I can't convince to consider the startup industry at all. There's a serious paucity of embedded people in the industry and it would be great to have somebody like him.
Too bad he's extremely skeptical of all of it because of people like you.
More comments from the same person:
Concerning your blog again:
19:57 < (censored)> i basically dislike any author that tries to simplify something difficult, undermining people that have put effort into it
Concerning hackerne.ws:
Someone (the stackoverflow asker) is bitter that someone released a competing product for free.
That's basically what i think of hackernews.
Full of people that are only interested in making money. Don't get me wrong, i want to be rich as well, but have some fucking pride.
/endquote
This community, the victory blog bullshit, all of it damns itself.
My erudition is a self-indulgence and attempt to put a mirror up.
Cheers, enjoy the cat picture.
Edit: Added comments from another programmer below.
21:03 < (name censored)> alnayyir: I just read some of that Sebastian Marshall tripe. Bleh, it made me vomit in my mouth a little bit. What a bunch of unscientific, psycho-babble nonsense.
If other non start-up hackers don't like advice such as this (business advice, which seems to be what you're saying), perhaps the problem is with them and not Lionhearted? They should be able to understand that it is a valid viewpoint and a general truth that these things exist, are useful, and are neutral in nature, and it doesn't make sense to ignore it.
>What's missing?
Substance.