I resonate with this a lot. There is a time horizon beyond which the work we do doesn't really matter. No code I wrote five years ago is in production today. A vanishingly small number of products I built are still around. The act of building is a pleasure, but once it's built, its success and impact are pretty much out of my hands. Once I accepted that, I enjoyed the process a lot more, and ironically my output got better, too.
These days, I take the most pleasure out of building careers and mentoring younger engineers. I remind them of this lesson. I think, when I die, I'll be more proud of the people on my teams and what they went on to do than any software we shipped.
I had a similar perspective on gratitude when I was broke. I wasnt unhappy necessarily.
But when I became “rich” things definitely changed and I don’t even have Woz money.
Being “rich” helps in that you don’t worry about money anymore at least not in the way you did before…
But as Larry David said as soon as “making money” disappears as a worry than something else tends to take its place in your head. A good example would be “losing money” or “trusting others.”
The biggest goal should be becoming debt-free and avoiding consumerism. If you can do this you can reduce money as a worry and focus on gratitude as Woz says.
It can be hard to be happy and find direction when you’re broke.
I wouldn't say this is about being rich or not. My father helped shape my perspective, and as he used to say: "I've been rich and I've been poor. Rich is better." [1] He literally grew up in poverty, but he saw his legacy as his family and not his work.
I think there's a subtle difference between living a happy life and looking back being proud of the life you lived. Of course having money is better. Money opens up possibilities for the future. However, on your deathbed when there isn't much future left, possibilities don't matter much and all you're left with is wondering what your legacy will be. In the difference lies hedonism.
1. Like most of the things he said, he got it somewhere, though I can't find a consistent attribution. The oldest seems to be Beatrice Kaufman.
> No code I wrote five years ago is in production today.
Same. Sometimes the company disappears, sometimes they just stop maintaining your code after you leave, and it eventually dies.
The only code of mine that has stuck around is the open source stuff. And even then... a large open source project I started 15 years ago was wildly successful, but after I left (with another maintainer in place) it languished, and one of these days I expect even its website and git repo will disappear.
In my 20 years as a dev.. I am sure my fingerprints (code I wrote) still exist in past jobs... the past companies I have worked for.
Sadly, going back to my first job, I know the project I wrote came to an abrupt end a few years after I left. I am sure that codebase has long since disappeared... though I might still find some code in USB sticks, somewhere.
Even my previous job, some front end gui projects are likely terminated due to structural changes in the company. Going all-cloud with a product which would have changed bespoke applications.
All comes down to experience. If I could go back in time to my first job, I could "hack" out that code in days.. rather than months, but I am diverting the topic a little. lol.
> These days, I take the most pleasure out of building careers and mentoring younger engineers
Again -- agreed!
Doing my bit to help find their feet is very rewarding. Being in my 40s and seeing "kids" that are 10, 15, or near 20 years younger than me is a reality-check for me! It comes a point when my humour in the room no longer lands... because they have no idea what I refer to. I nearly get a heart attack when I hear someone say "I have not seen Robocop"
The other reality-check, and a more serious one, is that I am at an age of guidance... for them. I remember being their age, with little help or guide from the older, senior devs in the room. I swore I would never be like this. Well, I am now at that age they once were.
I know at least a couple of guys I have worked with, for different reasons, have moved on and are successful. If I can claim atleast 2% of their good decisions.. I will take it. Very happy for them!
Getting good pay is one thing.
Mentoring new careers is heart warming.
Funnily enough my first gigs around the turn of the century were in ASP/JScript! As far as I know that code is still running in production, NT 4.0 or something?
Now I need to track my code down. I think I can find open source code from 14 years ago still in use. Unless the product is defunct or all your code is rewritten, I think it's common that code just keeps running.
I'm sure-ish some of my code from 10 yrs ago is still in production. Though I'm far removed from where it actually runs. Maybe even some of the older code I wrote (which at this point is ~ 15yrs old) might be still around (at a different place)
5 yrs ago? No problem. I even have to still maintain the darn thing.
Of course, different companies, different cases, etc.
I'm in the weird position of code I wrote 15 years ago still being a common thing I use in production on applications I run today. I worked for a monitoring company that still uses the distant ancestor of the code I wrote, so if I am monitoring applications using their library, it's still got a lot of my code in it.
The oldest code I think is still in production I wrote in 2002, so it's old enough to drink. Still powers a web form as far as I am aware. Funny story - it was in ASP/JScript, so I've been doing "full stack JS" for close to 25 years now?!
I'm still in contact with former colleagues from 4 of my 5 former employers over the last ~20 years (no contact from 1 of them that I left in a hurry). That's how I know code I wrote back then, alongside code that was even older, is still in use today.
You think like this today. Would your life be better if you had this stance for your last 30 years? Would that be your advice for young adults who are just entering life?
I guess you were lucky that you didn't have any cases of cancer in the family (if you had, then I apologize and I'm sorry). No important problems that are only easily solved by lots of money. But if it's just luck, then it's really inappropriate to build a world view based on what you were lucky enough to avoid.
Parent's advice is about favouring team and striving to be an enabler/multiplier rather than sweating over individual perfection of craft. It's a fairly common conclusion that some people arrive at.
What are you contrasting that to? How does that relate to money problems and health problems?
Is becoming a multiplier mutually exclusive from chasing financial success in your opinion?
EDIT to elaborate on the concept of a multiplier. Say you can become a mythical 10x engineer or you can become a mentor. If you can mentor 5 normal engineers from 1x to 2x then you've now got 10x engineering and the org also has reduced bus factor.
What about if those 5 2x engineers can bring another 25 0.5x engineers up to 1x engineers. Suddenly your org can become much more than a single 10x engineer can accomplish.
This is quite spurious and 9 mothers can't have a baby in 1 month but it's a useful mental model for the value of individual contribution vs coaching/managing.
In reality while people like to balk at the idea of the 10x engineer, the truth is there are probably 100x and 1000x engineers out there. Von Neumann is probably a 1000x or more. Linus and Page&Brin are probably at least a 100x etc - those multiples are made up, power laws make numbers go big
I never had the pleasure of working with a manager that cared about me, nor I had contact with any other form of a "multipler" person, other than my parents. So I don't think I'm a good candidate for discussion in this subject, because obviously I won't really know what I'm writing about, and I'm certainly not knowledgable about what you care about.
I only had the impression that the OP tells his subordinates that "they shouldn't oversweat, do some meaningful stuff but remember it won't really matter in the end". This is while working for a company that was created by a person who has probably worked their ass off, and maybe even sacrificed their private life for pursuing a dream of having a large company.
All I'm saying is that money, success, power, connections are so important in life that they give happiness even for other people. If we're poor, then where do we go for help? To those who are richer or more powerful. They enable our happiness in our time of need (that is, if they choose to help us).
I'm not sure what kind of luck you're talking about. I'm not "post-money" and have to work for a living. I've never gotten a startup exit. I am well compensated the way someone with 25 years of work experience would be. I don't know about 30, but I've had this stance for the last 15 or so. I'm now pushing 45. I've had my fair share of family cancers and health crises. I've seen loved ones pass.
And it's those people that are in my head when I think about my world view and shape my views on engineering management. So yeah, my advice to young adults would be (and has been) "plan for waking up one day and finding that work isn't all that important anymore and have a diversification strategy. The real startups are the friends we made along the way."
I guess "universal healthcare" works in your country. But generally "universal healthcare" has treated my grandmother for sleep problems, but later when she died they figured out that the reason was intestine cancer. No doctor gave a sh*t that day. With money and private healthcare this could be avoided.
My mother when visiting a "universal healthcare" doctor (queues are several months long) for digestion problems AND having a genetic history of cancer was given Xanax for depression. She fortunately tossed out the receipt for it after leaving the doctor office, because she's not stupid, certainly not depressed.
So I think mentioning a mythical "universal healthcare" in my direction doesn't have the outcome you'd like it to have. Even more, it kind of proves my point, that you don't need money if everything goes well. You need it when things go to sh*t.
Why do you think private healthcare would give you a better answer? You accepted the first answer the jniversal healthcare system gave you. Do you have any reason to believe you wouldn't accept that answer if given by a private clinic?
Money + private healthcare gives you options. You can go to different doctors several times a week to get a possibly different diagnosis. It costs money, so having it is a prerequisite. But giving money acts as a motivator here, because doctors want money.
In "universal healthcare", you can only go to a doctor once, or two times a year. Because the waiting queues are so long sometimes. And even if you change the doctor, the previous diagnosis will be in the same system, so if the doctor will get lazy, they'll just repeat the diagnosis. There's no motivator here (well, during communist times, a popular form of motivator was a "present" for doctor, so people found ways to motivate doctors).
1. What you're describing seems to be a criminally underfunded universal healthcare. In properly funded ones, you aren't limited to one or two visits to a doctor a year.
2. Public healthcare does not prohibit people from using private doctors. People who can afford to go to the private doctor can still do it. Whereas people who can't (or can, but just choose not to), get their lifes saved by the state.
3. Profit motive is deeply flawed in all businesses, but it's especially problematic in something as critical as healthcare. If the doctors are primarily driven by money and not by doing their job properly, they'll fleece their customers. It's not uncommon among dentists (who are largely privatised even across Europe) to make up expensive, unnecessary procedures so that they can buy their next Porsche or a house on the Spanish coast etc.
1. It's not about some rule that limits the number of visits, it's about that you can't physically do it, because an appointment for urologist made today will get you an appointment on october. Because the queues are so long, people make appointments even if they don't need it, and then don't show up. This makes queues even longer.
2. Yes, public healthcare does not prohibit from using the private sector, fortunately. But the amount of money I pay for the "universal free public healthcare" every month dwarfs my expenses to private sector. It's like I'm paying for a really expensive service, and I can use it twice a year with questionable effects. So not only public healthcare is extremely expensive for me, I need to pay above that to use the private sector. I understand what the money is for -- so that other people can use it that are less fortunate than me. So they kind of rely on my sacrifice, on my life choices, my risk.
3. Maybe it's flawed, but it's the reality. Trying to change that isn't really my fight. If you know how to fix that then by all means go ahead. I need to spend my energy elsewhere.
> 1. It's not about some rule that limits the number of visits, it's about that you can't physically do it, because an appointment for urologist made today will get you an appointment on october. Because the queues are so long, people make appointments even if they don't need it, and then don't show up. This makes queues even longer.
This was also my experience with the private health care system as well.
Alot has to do with the lack of specialists in certain fields. This is not an easy problem to fix because there are only so many residency slots available, and its hard to increase them. The best you can do is poach from other countries.
I live in Germany, and had cancer, and my experience with the public health system is completely different from yours. I got prompt treatment and asked for second and third opinions (which I also got at short notice, from different doctors at different hospitals) before treatment.
I know from friends there are places where the public health system is so underfunded (e.g. Bulgaria) that they basically had to get private health insurance to get good treatment. In other words YMMV.
Good for you I guess. But people who live in better environment shouldn't impose a world view for people who live in worse environments. They should at least have a decency of understanding what is their privilege, and that there are people who don't have it.
Meanwhile, on HN, the only reaction I can count for is a downvote for telling my life experience. That's why I love HN, you often disappoint, correcting my life expectations closer to reality :heart: !
I’m not imposing anything, I’m suggesting you’re (probably) suffering from a specific shitty healthcare system rather than your implied conclusion that universal health care systems are inherently shitty.
In fact I immigrated to Germany from a country with shittier (underfunded) health care system myself so I can very much relate.
I don't think you are getting downvoted for sharing your life experience. You're getting it for projecting that single experience onto an entire institution, without evidence that your single experience is representative.
None of the companies I've worked for exist today. Even some of the buildings are gone. I worked at 1188 Bordeaux in Sunnyvale (at a kooky company called Microtest where I used to smoke weed with the CEO and CFO), and now it's been replaced with a Google parking garage (and Sunnyvale Fire Station #5 next door).
Every software engineering company I have worked for (5) still exists today. One of them was started in the '40s, so it clearly wasn't always a software company, and wouldn't strictly define itself as one today, either, but software is a critical component of their product lines so whatever. My current employer has been around since the '80s. Another was started in the late '90s. The others were startups that are younger.
I think this is kind of sad, but I guess I'm also very fortunate in who (most of) my employers have been. I've spent a large portion of my career working in codebases alongside stuff from the '90s, and with my first employer the things I was doing ~20 years ago are still in production systems today, right there alongside the older bits from the '90s in many cases.
I saw some comments in code last week from the founders of my current employer, written back in the '90s when I would've just been entering high school. That code and much more is still there in a product used and beloved by millions.
At an employer in the middle there, the oldest code was from the mid-2000s but it's still kicking around. Code I wrote there a decade later is still in production use today.
I can only think of a single employer where this isn't the case and it was a shitty startup that I never should've accepted an offer for.
That's great, I guess, but the point is that all work is ephemeral. Whether it lasts five years or 100, there's going to be an end date. When you're on your death bed, is "my code was in production longer than average" going to be what you want your legacy to be?
That's what we're talking about here. Sure, it'd be nice if I built a knockout startup with code so great it lived beyond me, and that's a worthy thing to pursue. However, in the end looking back you may, like Woz, find that was less important than other things.
Not at all how I took it, but okay. I worked in embedded, medical robotics, and am now in games. People use the shit I've built, I wish more people in this stupid industry had a similar experience. That's what I was talking about.
> When you're on your death bed, is "my code was in production longer than average" going to be what you want your legacy to be?
This is just weird. No. I don't believe that I'll think about it much. God willing I won't think about it at all starting as soon as I retire but let alone on my death bed.
As far as I'm aware the work I've done for institutions that still exist is all largely in place. I wouldn't consider this unusual or surprising in most industries, and certainly not a sign of exceptional competence on my part.
Life outside the FAANG-adjacent-or-worshipping community is completely different.
Based on your post, I was curious how long the stuff I write will be around for. I write software for cars, so that means a lot of legacy stuff, I've seen code written by coleagues hang around in the next generations of product for about 10 years. Then you have the life of the vehicles that varies greatly, but at least _some_ of the vehicles will reach 25 years, so I'd expect at least some of the SW I write to linger around for ~35-ish years. Not bad.
A bit unsettling when I think about the varying quality of software though.
Can relate. My in-vehicle SW is driving for 20 years and counting (and it is not just some standard AutoSar stuff but high performance video processing pre "A" "I" ;) ). When I see cars with it I always remember some funny anecdotes and good fellas that I was lucky to share some journey with. Making a durable dent feels satisfying for sure, but also doing "cyber physical" projects and moving real things around.
Yeah, I worked for an embedded company for ~8 years and there was a lot of old code kicking around that had been carried forward across product iterations. I know, from talking to colleagues who are still there today, that code I wrote ~20 years ago is still kicking around here or there in the current offerings.
> A bit unsettling when I think about the varying quality of software though.
It is not necessary to be like this. A lot of code is used for decades after it's written, a lot of software is influential in its own right. I'm not even thinking of "Fortran for government" situations, but things like IrfanView, FancyBox javascript module, or Magic Fields Wordpress plugin. Not to speak of niche aoftware tools for specific communities.
> At the end of his life, Steve Wozniak won't measure his happiness by the size of Apple's market cap or his personal net worth.
This is a very popular stance to take for every millionare out there.
Also, the absence of daily worries, the lack of problems induced by money, and the presence of an everlasting feeling of security can lead to a detachment from the concept of wealth. What I mean is, if you don’t experience the problems that money can easily solve—and there are many of them—and you possess a great deal of money, then you might not feel that money solves anything, simply because you haven’t encountered such problems in a long time. This could create the impression that money has no value, but it actually indicates that we’re detached from reality, not that we’ve achieved any form of moral enlightenment.
As "Amigo the Devil" says and sings:
---
Everyone says money can't buy happiness
And so far in my life, I'll agree
But it seems a lot more comfortable to cry in a Lamborghini
---
> simply because you haven’t encountered such problems in a long time
And because if you've vanquished the problems that money can solve, the only problems that occupy your attention are ones money can't solve, so those seem disproportionately important.
It's a good point, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is an important concept to keep in mind. However, most software engineers live well enough that their basic needs are well covered by their above-average income.
There used to be a happiness cap of 75k earnings that everyone considered, but there seems to be a happiness inflation with a cap today 500k [0]. But the correlation also seems to be that it depends on the mindset of the people. In the end it might be easier to change your mind than your salary.
The problem with any study like that is it's a) hard to actually measure happiness b) your wealth depends on everyone else's. If everyone else is making 10k/year, you're 75k feels comparatively like a lot more & goes a lot further because costs are scaled down similarly. More importantly, humans derive a lot of satisfaction generally from comparative analysis - if I'm doing better than my neighbor, I'm happy and if I think he's doing better I'm upset.
> This is a very popular stance to take for every millionare out there.
Also, many non-millionaires who are older and have the perspective common to the old like Wozniak too probably. Their kids are grown if they had any, they’re probably retired and no one expects them to change the world and they’re unlikely to have any ambition to do so. They know more people in the cemetery now than those who are alive. Because of that they know that life and its struggles are a passing thing and you have to enjoy it while you can with others while they’re with you. That is a legitimate kind of moral enlightenment that even the young with their whole life and its struggles before them can benefit from contemplating.
"Their kids are grown if they have any". This is one hell of an assumption. This assumes luck, or money if luck isn't there. Because if older people are unlucky and have no money, they are losing children. All of the people I know who have lost their offspring are either depressed or alcoholic.
With money, it depends on where your focus is. If it's still money, then it's sad. But if it's in other people WHILE having lots of money, then you're happy. If you get your priorities straight.
The phrase "money doesn't bring happiness" is one of the most silly things I've heard in my life. It's true that money shouldn't be the source of happiness, but it's enough to see all those fundraisers for children in need of medical assistance. In these cases, money can indeed bring a great deal of relief and happiness.
Not to detract from your main point, but there are various shades of “happiness” and quite a few of these are available and are indeed enjoyed by the poorest of the poor.
It can be vacuous rich people speak, but there is definitely something in untangling happiness from material circumstances (any kind).
If you suffer from the "arrival fallacy" (discussed in the article), then you will find out only after reaching the top that there's not much hapiness in there. Woz kinda saves you the trouble of many years working towards an illusory goal ("when I acommplish this, everything will be great").
It's only a fallacy for people who actually have arrived. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a useful framework - of course people who have achieved physical and emotional security, esteem in their career and family think that "it's not all about accomplishments", because they have all the accomplishments they need and are just trying to self-actualize.
People who aren't in a position to worry about self-actualization because they're trying to stay fed and clothed are unlikely to agree that money doesn't matter that much, if asked on their deathbed at presumably a young age.
I noticed that the only people who say "Hey, money isn't everything!" are people who already have plenty of money. The people who tell you at work "You don't really want to advance in your career and be a [Manager/Director/etc.], it's so much more work and responsibility!" are always themselves Managers and Directors. "Don't worry about work so much, take that vacation!" says the person who's at a point in life where they don't have to worry about work.
> People who aren't in a position to worry about self-actualization because they're trying to stay fed and clothed are unlikely to agree that money doesn't matter that much, if asked on their deathbed at presumably a young age.
Lets be real though, almost everyone who reads HN are in the self-actualization phase, instead of the "how not to starve" phase.
I'd agree they're probably not in the Basic Needs phase, but not necessarily past Psychological needs (Esteem, Belongingness and love, which are both under Self-Actualization).
Can be hard to get beyond those, and money isn't the deciding factor there.
That was an incredibly hard lesson for me to learn, but on the other hand, I'm happy I believed this fallacy because it motivated me to work hard, which brought me to the position I am currently in.
"I want to die remembering my pranks, and the fun I had, and funny jokes. I decided that life, for me, was not about accomplishment. It was about happiness."
Dont get me wrong -- I genuinely agree with this.
However, such comment means little when you have achieved an (unusual) high level of success. You have experienced something the vast majority does not.
To be in a position when you will be thankful taking your last breath around your close family, but will be mourned ALL OVER THE WORLD... and be remembered in the computer industry alongside Fred Brooks, Ken Thompson, Steve Jobs, etc... not to mention others (when they pass) like Linus Torvolds, John Carmack, Brian Keringhan... to name a few!
In the back of his mind he know this. He is just letting nature run with this, while focusing on family. He has acheived a lot and I respect that.
I haven’t achieved shit and I’m perfectly happy with that. I have a decently (maybe top 10%) paying job, not a career, and am trying to spend as much happy time as I can with my kids. No one, except my family, will remember me. So what?
Not at all. I should have chosen my language more carefully. I think we are in general agreement. My only point was that we don’t need any laurels to rest on to be happy with a “small” life.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
So? What's your point here? At no point did I say the above logic was wrong, infer it, say that it was so. You're literally arguing against something I never said, and me pointing that out, and showing you where I said "most", hasn't resulted in you modifying your argument.
I get the impression that you're not reading my entire comment, and then responding with all of the info in mind at once.
For example, I discussed how "knowing someone" has caveats. That talking to someone once, doesn't give context, doesn't equate to "knowing someone". That working with someone doesn't equate to "knowing someone", if the result was "I'd talk to the guy for a few sentences once per month" or "occasionally seem them talking to other people".
The entire context of this conversation revolves around understanding the world view of someone. Not seeing how they act for an incredibly tiny slice, non-contextualized slice of their life. And to "know" someone, you need to have actual, detailed conversations with them.
Further, I've covered how "watch video of them talking" isn't actually 1st hand in many respects. That's because often context is removed. You've just skipped that part.
One other thing you've also missed, is how people change. Part of my post was also about how Jobs wouldn't be the Jobs known by anyone. He'd be "Jobs plus > decade more experience". People change as they age.
If you wish to reply, I'd ask you stop handpicking parts of sentences to respond to, and respond to context as well.
> 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.
This is easy when you have the power to get all things you or your family needs for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately this is not the case for the rest of the world.
What I take from this is: if you have enough to buy the house you want, big or small, and look after the people in your family in a way you think is good, that's what's important from money.
You might have modest ambitions and achieve this soon, or you might have a great capacity for making money and achieve it soon, or your reach might exceed your grasp and you never feel as though you've done it.
I guess Woz made a lot of money and it was more than enough for him to do what he wanted with his life. That's great.
That single sentence makes a strong point. It illuminates a weak part of Wozniak's reasoning. But I still disagree, you've got to look for happiness where you're at.
There will come a time in our lives towards the end when we most likely will be alone - some of us will be fortunate to have partners or close friends.
And when that time comes - the memories you made will be your sole company, so while you are healthy, go out and make those good memories.
How well will you remember those memories by then? You'll have some pictures and videos to help, and some posts or journals to reread, but it could seem like an almost completely different person did those things by then.
I barely remember anything that happened to me 20 years ago (almost all of it is thanks to some journal entries I made back then and some files I have saved from then). I've surprised myself with what I've read in my journals relatively often, especially the further back I wrote them. Didn't remember those things happening to me at all. I mostly just remember major events and general trends.
Vacations I took more than 10 years ago I almost might as well not have taken because I remember at most maybe one or two brief anecdotes and a handful of mental images. And conversations I had with people are basically all lost if I didn't commit them to journals at the time.
Not outright disagreeing with you, btw, but sometimes it seems like I waste a lot of money chasing memories where I could have chased a few less memories, and be a lot closer to retiring by now.
Especially if we're talking media consumption, like CDs/movies/games I watched or played once, if that, or eating out so often in restaurants.
"Stay honest, keep smiling and pay your own successes forward"
Love this mentality. I've not seen such a concise phrase to describe such a positive perspective that truly embraces the "gift" of life. Like, be real/legit, find the good in everything/everyone, and help people out or life people up. Woz seems like a pretty cool guy.
He does indeed seem like a laid back normal person. But I must admit that I find it pretty easy to have such sentiments if one has or had a net worth that's basically infinite money to 99% of people out there. Would this post have the same upvotes and discussion if it was from an unknown gas station attendant or school teacher?
It's good to take note of his positive attitude, but I do also think it's healthy to take anything multimillionaires say with a grain of salt.
I know what you mean and I've definitely thought the same. Wealthy people often have views of life and the world quite distinct from, well, not-so-wealthy/struggling people. That said, from my limited knowledge of the history of Apple, it didn't seem like Woz was ever driven from seeking riches so much as the joy of electronics, engineering, hacking, creation and of course benefiting others as a result of these pursuits. Worded simply, it seems to me like he was kinda already that way before he became rich. Maybe not though, I don't know a ton about him.
If it was a school teacher people would surreptitiously dismiss it as "coping". People would dismiss it anyway, being it Woz or a teacher. Maybe people are somehow dismissing his opinion because it contradicts the entrepreneurial ethos that is glorified over here.
It makes sense: conditional on having achieved a lot, achievement doesn’t matter that much. This is why so many successful people will tell you they are glad for the time they spent with family and friends and so many people who didn’t succeed will talk about the opportunities they wish had worked out.
I think this statement is very cliche and worthless. All the attention woz is getting right now happens to come from the fact that Apple is a company that everyone is looking for, and he happens to be one of the two founders.
I would think that there’s definitely VC money in making your customers happy. What makes them happy might be different, but I believe the sentiment still remains
As a Hacker you need to learn to solve these problems yourself.
While in the EU/UK you need to learn to get around censorship, you have to work past your cyber-agoraphobia, leave your region. Use a VPN or Tor or Proxy
It surprised me surveying 10,000's of students for accessibility how many used Apple over products you pay for. The failure is government, they should be creating these tools, not Apple, and the specialized private industry in this space is also incompetent.
Lovely bit of history. Thanks for sharing. There is an interesting undercurrent of the blind and the history of hacking. Iirc Cap'n Crunch learned about phreaking from a house of blind people who could also hear and whistle the control tones.
My approach when I share something is to make sure that it is not behind a paywall or any other login schemes and while indeed one can jump in the page source and find the direct video link, not everyone has the time or is the "hacker" assumed here just because the read hacker news, I think we are years and years past this. Thanks again for the link though
Imagine how sad Steve Jobs was when he reaffirmed the call to not perform his fully-funded pancreatic cancer treatment. Do you think he was laying on his deathbed thinking about all the great hours of work he put in at Apple before reaching the pearly gates? Or was he reflecting on the $5,000 he stole from Woz in the name of "accomplishment" earlier on, the ways he ignored his peers when they succeeded with the Apple II, the Lisa he failed to sell in utter vanity, the family he ignored in his delusional ego-trip, the world he forgot in pursuit of a better business?
Maybe if Jobs lived more like Woz he'd not be so eager to die. Accomplishment be damned.
>Or was he reflecting on the $5,000 he stole from Woz in the name of "accomplishment" earlier on
Absolutely not
> Apple II, Lisa
I have a hard time thinking Steve Jobs was thinking of nearly 30 year old commercial failures on his death bed
>Wozniak is living proof that you can be both a smart and productive person without destroying everyone and everything around you
Woz was nowhere near as productive as Jobs and you know it. He had numerous failed business attempts you haven't mentioned, most of his accomplishments seem to be philanthropic and funded by residual Apple wealth. He's regarded as a "darling of the valley", that's it. There were other Engineers who could've designed those early products, but far less Steve Jobs.
It takes more than a big cuddly gullable teddy bear to curate something as impactful as the iPhone, arguably the most significant consumer electronic product in the past 20 years.
> Woz was nowhere near as productive as Jobs and you know it.
Now I need this quote as a stitched sampler to hang over my toilet.
Why didn't Jobs do the Atari contract himself? Why didn't he build the Macintosh alone? Why didn't he build his Phreaking business without the help of others?
Such a vast mystery. The world may never know! It's just so hard to tell... obviously Jobs' genius surpassed Woz's weak intellect!
> He had numerous failed business attempts you haven't mentioned
And Jobs didn't?
> most of his accomplishments seem to be [...] funded by residual Apple wealth
There were many engineers who could've designed those products, but far less people who had the vision. A handful of engineers can design many amazing things, and yes they're essential, but they need use to a consumer. The people who vote with their wallet and keep a company alive.
> And Jobs didn't?
He did, but he certainly redeemed himself. Also there's this little company called Pixar you might've heard of.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize your mouth was congenitally attached to Jobs' penis.
Have you looked into surgery for getting it detached? I've heard there's quite a high chance of success if you don't resign yourself to failure and insist upon a fruit-based diet.
Please, feel free to circle back and respond once your life amounts to something truly meaningful.
I'm looking forward to you spending the rest of your life wallowing in misery so you can "accomplish" less than your adversaries and die an even less-remembered figure than the one guy who played second-fiddle to Jobs.
He had a driven business partner who helped turn his passion for computers into a multi-billion corporation. He always struck me as immature. Not a great businessman, not a great engineer, more of a hobbyist who got lucky and quickly reached the limits of his knowledge and ability with the original Apple.
His myth has greatly outgrown his accomplishments and I have a feeling even he is not comfortable with it, he'd rather be showing off his Nixie watch to friends.
Woz was a great engineer. He was years ahead of any other engineer on the planet in terms of building awesome PC designs. Millions of the computers he designed and programmed were sold, for billions of dollars. The computer he created was the "Model T" of the personal computer industry. It's hard to be more technically accomplished as an engineer.
He could not have done it without Steve Jobs. But Steve Jobs could not have done it without him, either.
Steve Jobs was a major believer in the idea of the 100x engineer. During his entire career, he always tried to hire them.
And why did Steve Jobs believe in hiring 100x engineers? Because he knew and worked with Steve Wozniak.
Knowing when you're at the limit of what you're able/willing to do and ducking out to go have a happy life strikes me as more mature, not less. Certainly he was a hobbyist and certainly he got lucky but what he did was still impressive for the time and choosing to step away is admirable imo
Yeah he had luck. And so what ? Good for him. He is not claiming anything else.
I don’t know if there is a real myth around him but it doesn’t looks like he is trying to maintain it.
The guy really looks like he just wants to be happy in life and would prefer not be a celebrity.
It looks like he is a worse entrepreneur than Jobs, sure, but a better father and a better human overall, that’s pretty sure. I feel like that’s a pretty mature behavior if you ask me.
These days, I take the most pleasure out of building careers and mentoring younger engineers. I remind them of this lesson. I think, when I die, I'll be more proud of the people on my teams and what they went on to do than any software we shipped.