> I wish he had dug more into the forces at work here. But it is an important point nonetheless.
He was busy slapping all nerds everywhere on the back with reflected glory.
You're just reading in what you wanted him to say and judging your desired reading, not the original.
(Edit: and I did the same, fixating on the self-congratulatory fluff and ignoring the selection-biased hypothesis about making predictions.)
> Instead the top comment is the forum analogue of a fluff post: a cynical dismissal based on some presumed bad intention on the writer's part.
You're basically imputing to me a motive to impute a motive to Chris that in my estimation neither of us had. I mentioned Naïve Realism a while back in one of the various pitchfork debates (the Tesla test drive, I think). I think it's happening here too.
But really, this post was self-congratulation. I've read similar fluff from marketers and advertisers who see themselves as the lever-pullers of capitalism, from student politicians about their destiny as masters of all creation, from lawyers about the utter indispensibility of their ancient craft, from engineers ditto ... ad infinitum. In all such cases they could have written the same stuff about how they were shaping The Future Of The World years ago.
I'd be more interested in seeing the base rate on all the garage projects that go absolutely nowhere, achieve nothing and have no meaningful impact on the world. That would be most of them.
Which is fine. But let's not pretend that since Woz was a genius, the rest of us are also in the same category.
Which is fine. But let's not pretend that since Woz was a genius, the rest of us are also in the same category.
Totally agree. Let's see what the OP is suggesting:
1. People make awesome products/services on the weekends.
2. These awesome products/services will serve new industries.
3. So that means all awesome products/services should be built on the weekends so we can create new industries.
It’s a good bet these present-day hobbies will seed future industries.
I vehemently disagree. This is not a good bet. You know what's a good bet? That IBM's stock will continue to rise.[1] That SAP's stock will continue to rise.[2] It's also a good bet that these companies will continue (as they have for years) to create technology products that businesses want. There is a risk they won't, but it's a lower risk than the guy creating a product in his garage over the weekend.
What the smartest people do on the weekends is what everyone else will do during the week in ten years.
This is the comment that really irks me and dually why this whole post is seen as self promotion. A 'bet' is something you risk against someone else's risk. Are people willing to tell me that they'd put more money down on the weekend projects than the companies who have been doing this for 10+ years? The OP is suggesting that there will be a higher percentage of new industries created (which might be possible), but then states that these industries will cause the working population to shift to this new industry. Bullocks. What evidence does anyone have to suggest this?
Good on the OP though...he got my eyeballs. Black swan sightings sell well.
He coined a nice epigram I will remember. That is enough for the article to be interesting.
What is the problem with being self-congratulatory? What is wrong with focusing on the positive and thinking that your hobby and life's work is worthwhile? Would anything be created if people were constantly doubting themselves and their creations? Would anything be better then?
What harm would there be in people hoping to be the next woz? And with the low base rate of garage projects going anywhere, which we are all painfully aware of, don't you think it's better to give encouragement and hope. I do, and I think a dismissal such as yours is harmful to the greater cause of creating interesting ideas, programs and thoughts.
> What is the problem with being self-congratulory?
I'd like to say here that having some perspective can prevent certain kinds of mistake. I think that's correct.
I'd be on surer ground if I point out that a person entirely satisfied with their professional perspective isn't going to improve past a certain asymptote that they themselves are unable to perceive.
But honestly? I just find self-congratulation tremendously embarrassing. I don't know if it's inherited or a self-deprecating theme present in Australian culture or just plain old jealousy. Or some combination of the above.
Well, ideas are constantly being heavily pruned and cut to the ground on hacker news.
And some of that pruning is good and necessary. Otherwise, bad ideas would proliferate and take air and light from the good ideas. But often when I read HN's comments, the field just looks like scorched earth. A complete, overpowering negativity everywhere. And I think then the pruning has lost its purpose, and is a bad thing.
I suppose, I would like that whenever an idea was dismissed it would be by pointing to a better idea in the vicinity which could then be thought about or worked on instead. That way the true purpose of criticism and pruning would be clear: To not let the bad ideas take resources from the good ones.
With regards to self-congratulatory behavior in general: well I suppose I understand you. I've been brought up that way too, as has perhaps most people. Still, I recall Russel's own adage:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.”
I don't know the author of the OP, but I do certainly think that negative attitudes create even more doubts in the wise, while fools and fanatics likely are innately immune. Therefore, I don't think that unreserved dismissals usually will do anything to people's character, except for strengthening those traits you really want to see less of, in the wise.
Yeah, I think it's not only about self-deprecating humor, but as a broader approach to life, about not taking yourself seriously, ever. Those two are probably the greatest things a human being can have, and I always look for them in peers as a way to find some common ground. Are you embarassed for me?
Maybe I'm traveling in the wrong tech circles, but I hardly see insufficient confidence in the greatness of ourselves as the major problem facing techie culture, such that we need more encouragement to cultivate such a self-appreciation. How great and ahead of our times we are, especially compared to all those rubes who aren't techies, is sort of an axiom of the culture.
He was busy slapping all nerds everywhere on the back with reflected glory.
You're just reading in what you wanted him to say and judging your desired reading, not the original.
(Edit: and I did the same, fixating on the self-congratulatory fluff and ignoring the selection-biased hypothesis about making predictions.)
> Instead the top comment is the forum analogue of a fluff post: a cynical dismissal based on some presumed bad intention on the writer's part.
You're basically imputing to me a motive to impute a motive to Chris that in my estimation neither of us had. I mentioned Naïve Realism a while back in one of the various pitchfork debates (the Tesla test drive, I think). I think it's happening here too.
But really, this post was self-congratulation. I've read similar fluff from marketers and advertisers who see themselves as the lever-pullers of capitalism, from student politicians about their destiny as masters of all creation, from lawyers about the utter indispensibility of their ancient craft, from engineers ditto ... ad infinitum. In all such cases they could have written the same stuff about how they were shaping The Future Of The World years ago.
I'd be more interested in seeing the base rate on all the garage projects that go absolutely nowhere, achieve nothing and have no meaningful impact on the world. That would be most of them.
Which is fine. But let's not pretend that since Woz was a genius, the rest of us are also in the same category.