Many of us feel this way about his essays. He bloviates often as if on a pedestal without realizing how transparently arrogant he sounds. Many of his ideas inherently contradict his other ideas, or are simply vague and shallow. But he’s rich, so of course he must be an astute philosopher.
Thank you for your note, and for all you do to help moderate HN. Moderators like you help keep the site honest.
I have reviewed the link you provided. I agree with the guidelines noted therein. I asked some of my peers to give an objective read of my comment and they found it an accurate reflection of how they too responded to the posted essay. I cannot identify anything about it that was contrary to what is observed by many members of this community.
I do apologize to you though if you read it differently.
The question is ill-posed imo. I would invert the question and ask: "How not to suck at your work" as that would lead to similar conclusions, and is more actionable.
This essay has too many weasel sentences like:
"Boldly chase outlier ideas,"
"Husband your morale"
"Doing great work is a depth-first search whose root node is the desire to. "
"Curiosity is the best guide."
This is woolly-feel-good writing that chatgpt and folks like steve pinker, deepak chopra etc specialize in, ie: a bag-of-words about fuzzy feel-good ideas we all want to hear.
