> does it mean that if you sell something people actually want, literally nothing else matters about your intelligence, education, character, background, or anything at all
You got it. As always, it's the gross margins. Cocaine has higher gross margins than most prescription drugs, which in and of themselves are almost pure margin -- nevermind that, the market demand for it is broad and deep globally. Cartel operators aren't dumb. On the contrary, they show much of the unsavory, warlord like aspects of doing many kinds of business where there are zero-sum dynamics like this -- they just don't even try and hide it.
Wow, thanks for the scoop! Is there anywhere interested readers can read more about Dave and Chamath's tenure at FB, particularly the latter and the issues you pointed out?
I’m only partway through the audiobook and haven’t fact-checked it, both both are covered fairly extensively in [1]. Jump straight to chapter 10 (Growth!) for the start of Chamath.
I’m really enjoying the book so far, and it seems to present a pretty unbiased view considering it was made with access to (and, by extension, some amount of blessing by) Facebook.
I'm not sure I agree. Either you are conflating vocation, field of academic study, political power, socioeconomic class and status, or things are just different in the UK.
Here in the US, you rarely study computer science to become a computer scientist but rather to be a highly paid engineer or eventually obscenely wealthy founder. The same is true for philosophers, authors, politicians and composers; increasingly, the same is true for biology, physics and even law. You study these (or any of these fields) to show some ability for abstract thought to get you into the career of your choosing.
In the US, notably, the field you actually study increasingly seems to have little to do with what you do later on in life; that all seems to do with your socioeconomic class, who you make buddies with in early schooling, who your parents know. It doesn't matter if you study law at Harvard if you don't come from wealth; and likewise, it doesn't matter if you study CS if you come from wealth. And inside the middle class to upper middle class, studying either field isn't very likely to break you into the upper class; only starting/scaling a business will.
Looking at members of the senate is also not very useful. Sure, "computer scientists" may not be represented in the Senate. But wealthy "applied computer scientists" who started companies (Bezos, Gates, etc) hire lobbying firms that essentially purchase the behavior of these senators wholesale. They have more clout than entire nation states.
Still, with that said, there's a difference between clout and high social status. But I observe that high social status is something that pertains to caste and heredity, not necessarily field of study.
Are computer scientists invited into the club before they have money? No. Do they get offered the opportunities that money doesn't buy? No. That's the difference.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply! I think that clarifies your viewpoint considerably. If you don't mind me asking, could you elaborate on the kinds of opportunities that money doesn't buy? And furthermore, to what extent have you seen vocation give access to that which is not given by heredity or caste? I think that would help elucidate the subtle distinction between high clout and high social status.
For example... I have a friend who is a barrister in London. He makes a lot less money than I do, and works a lot longer hours, so sounds like he has the lower status job, right?
No, because he's getting invited to join elite private social clubs and organisations. He's going to dinner parties with politicians and could use that network to start a political career if he wanted. He's meeting people with capital to invest. He's on the sports team with influential people. Etc.
There's a whole real-life social network out there, and they definitely aren't inviting the programmers.
That's true but it cuts both ways. I think social respect is entirely relative. It doesn't make sense to talk about status as if there's a universal ranking.
Your examples are all from the perspective of someone inside the British political system. Are these jobs high status? Not from my viewpoint - there's no way I'd want to be e.g. a civil servant, a Sir or even a politician in the existing parties. A whole lot of people hold this class in contempt, really. If a senior British civil servant turned up at a social gathering that happened to be mostly software engineers and successful company founders, do you think they'd get much respect? People would be polite, certainly, but I don't think they'd have a circle around them hanging on to their every word.
I've visited the elite London social clubs. I've also had dinners in the back rooms of fancy London restaurants with investors, journalists and other members of the British 'elites', invited there specifically to talk to them. So I guess I find that world a bit less impressive than normal. Actually I've repeatedly visited two private clubs, both closed to programmers normally: one is for people in the arts and one is for people in finance. I've close relationships with someone in the arts and someone in finance, both of whom make lots of money and thus purchased these memberships. They can take guests, so, that's how I got in.
There are some perks. They have nice facilities in good locations. The receptionists, waitresses and many of the guests are very good looking, they must find them in modelling agencies or something. Would I pay to join one if I could? No way. They're ripoffs: you can get nice bars and hotels anywhere, and there are far easier ways to make business contacts in our world than going to those and hoping you bump into someone.
For example, if you want to meet investors in the UK I can hook you up in ten minutes. It's way easier for people like us to get meetings with investors than basically any other group. People know computer scientists can multiply money like nobody else. I'm actually surprised a lawyer would get the time of day from serious investors, it's certainly not an advantage of his social status.
Great points. I think your points are especially salient given GP's points earlier above:
> There's a whole real-life social network out there, and they definitely aren't inviting the programmers.
Is that really the case? Or is it just the case that they're not inviting the kind of "programmers" that GP knows/is (and for what it's worth, I consider myself an engineer, not a programmer)? For what it's worth, as a 30 year old "just an IC" in tech, I know a lot more HNI individuals and "high status" people (supermodels, executives, musicians, scions) /and/ find it way easier to get meetings with folks in /their/ network if I want to than my peers from university who were just as ambitious as I was and who went into law, management consulting, banking, or academia.
While I wouldn't say my experience is necessarily indicative of the average IC in my field or world, it is certainly not unique; indeed, my managers at previous firms took very similar trajectories. But then again, this is based on my experience in NYC. As the world is changing, I do think there is an increasingly accelerating understanding that the wheels of power are increasingly being seized by technology, and that those who utilize it to do so have the world as their oyster.
> There's a whole real-life social network out there, and they definitely aren't inviting the programmers.
I'm not sure if someone in your position is in the right position to be making this conclusion, if only because your lack of experience of social status (or those of people who you know who share your vocation) doesn't prove the vocation has any causality on social status. If there is a real-life "social network" out there, and "the programmers" (of which you are one, presumably) aren't getting invited, what is the inference to draw there? That programming is inherently low status, or that many low status people are in the vocation?
To give a counterexample, much of my career has been "just a programmer", but I have never had issues building close friendships with investors, executives, musicians, actors, and other well connected people. But elite private social clubs and organizations? Dinner parties with politicians? That's all passé. That's what people who _want_ to signal high status but actually can't do. And all of the politicians and investors follow the trailblazers who are scaling creative collectives and entrepreneurship federations who are in...you guessed it, my friend group.
As I have gotten older, I have become increasingly annoyed with the "programming is a low status" vocation trope. It's incredibly naive and simplistic. You think other vocations are higher status? Your friend who is a barrister isn't high status. He looks high status to you because you've never seen what truly high status is. That isn't a dig at you; rather, it's an invitation. Reserve your judgment of the world and how it works until you actually meet and party with these billionaires, politicians, and inheritors of nobility/trust fund wealth.
Having gone to college with these folks and having made friends with them, I'll tell you that the way they work is a lot different than what you think. They are almost allergic to these vocations that you would think of as "high-status" because they think these people are upper-middle class try-hards who are simply lame. They want cool artists, musicians, photographers, club promoters, entrepreneurs and other exploration minded folks as friends. Money and vocation can't buy cool. And programmers can be very cool. But you'd have to try and figure out what that means. It usually means you have to follow more of the hacker ethos than the academia ethos. You have to have a little bit of a piratical penchant for creative destruction.
> I'm not sure if someone in your position is in the right position to be making this conclusion
I disagree I think I have a unique ability to make it. I have two simultaneous careers - I'm a programmer and an Army officer. I can see what parties, clubs, dinners, social events, social connections the two versions of myself are invited to, and how both are treated socially.
I can directly compare the two experiences with all other variables controlled - background, education, accent, cultural awareness, where I live - just by changing the hat I'm wearing.
You would need to make real, deep friendships with high status individuals over a long period of time and observe how they behave, what motivates them, what they have access to and what constrains them. And you'd need to do it while you're both still young and formative life experiences are still being made. It might be too late for you to do this because the best time to do this is as early in life as possible, through formative social experiences: high school, then college (not as ideal), then early career (under 25 -- even less ideal). At each of these points, people and their social groups are progressively more crystallized, and your likelihood of making friends with someone outside of your class decreases precipitously.
Your "experiment" (I would hesitate to call it that) is really just two separate experiences held by one person. In all likelihood, the things that are held invariant there (you, the person) including strengths, weaknesses, formative social bonds, socioeconomic class that you were born into -- all those have much more of an effect on your outcomes than anything else, and even if you do see slightly higher social status as an army officer, it's not truly high status, the way examples I gave (billionaires, investors, children of nobility, famous artists and musicians) indicate. They live differently. They inherited their already high status, and continue moving savvily to increase it further. They are the results of many generations of this. If you're not friends with them, you won't get invited to their parties and you won't see their world. You won't understand. Their world is /completely/ different than yours. Theirs is ruled by tradition. They have obscene amounts of resources. They can do whatever they want. They maintain their position. You cannot experiment in any way possible that would imply anything about the way they live their lives; to think otherwise would be very naive and simply at odds at reality.
If it seems like that's unfair and that makes it tough or impossible for you to experimentally verify: I'd say I agree with you, but that it was designed that way on purpose over thousands of years.
And don't take my word for it. Make friends with these people, if you can. See how they see their world and move inside of it. Your priors might change. I know mine did.
> You would need to make real, deep friendships with high status individuals over a long period of time
This is backwards - in order to see how people treat people based on their profession, you can't make friends with them... because then they aren't judging you on your profession any more, are they?
If the exact same person is treated in two different ways, and absolutely nothing changes except their profession, then the profession is the only possible cause of the difference.
You try it! Go into an environment presenting with one profession, then another, and see the difference! Book into a hotel describing yourself as 'doctor' and you'll get treated differently than when you book in as 'mister'. You can try it yourself and it's plainly obvious that society sees a difference.
> it's not truly high status
I think you're possibly lost track of where this started - I said A was lower than the B. You're trying to argue with me that B isn't the highest, but I never said that - you're arguing against something nobody said in the first place.
> The reason you think that [...] has anything to do with it is
This is already bad, but
> you lack charisma to such a degree that
...crosses into personal attack. That's not allowed on HN, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't. You can easily make your substantive points without it anyhow. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
Edit: we've had to ask you this twice before. That's not cool:
There's clearly a pattern here. I'm not going to ban you now because you've also posted good comments, but please don't post any more personal attacks to HN, and please avoid tedious tit-for-tat entanglements with other users where the argument slides further to the right of the page as it slides further down in quality.
Legal profession - a senior judge or attorney will have social status and influence far beyond one simply granted by their wealth. University professors likewise. Doctors, especially the kind that work on diseases typical for wealthy old men; they will have status, social connections and influence beyond their profession. Politicians - town mayors generally aren't rich, but have influence and social status.
In essence, it's about the professions that work closely with other people. If you're high-ranking in a profession that provides an personal service that matters to socially important people, you'll have influence. Does your profession bring you into personal contacts with important people, where they are motivated (or forced) to rely on your specific personal competence? That will buy you their respect.
I don't see how you two disagree. Yes, computer science people (degree or not) can become influential through economic success. That's the same way construction company tycoons occasionally become influential. But there's a family of careers were wealth is more a consequence of status and influence than the reverse and those are almost as devoid of computer scientists as they are devoid of excavator operators.
> there's a family of careers were wealth is more a consequence of status and influence than the reverse
That's I think where I disagree. I would say that wealth is almost always a consequence of status and influence than the reverse, with maybe the express exception of CS/tech because of US entrepreneur/startup culture -- even that is debatable, but we can at least come up with examples, in large part because tech is so young as a field. If tech is, say, 50 years old compared to common law which is 2000+ years old, to what extent should we really be drawing comparisons and to what extent should we be saying "well, the /field/ is up in the air even if human socioeconomic relations are not"?
> In the US, notably, the field you actually study increasingly seems to have little to do with what you do later on in life
Not sure that this is US specific, I think this has more to do with people studying things the economy doesn’t really have a need for (which while inefficient is fine by me)
I (do not) look forward to seeing the results of "failing fast" here. The conspiracy theorists are convinced that this is how we got to COVID19 in the first place, and while I'm not really convinced there, I really do not enjoy thinking about the potential of such technology to create bioweapons of a scale never seen before.
All I see is a list of complaints about warts that Python has, and no real foundational reasons for or against using Python, such as the ecosystem, long term cost of ownership, ease of iteration, or ability to manage a codebase at scale. I think this blog post is not named accurately.
None of ecosystem, long term ownership, iteration, or codebases at scale are relevant to a foundational language (i.e. one that is being taught in order to teach the concepts of programming.)
A simple, clear syntax that comes, as much as is reasonable, secondary to whatever the concept being taught is is most important to me.
> None of ecosystem, long term ownership, iteration, or codebases at scale are relevant to a foundational language (i.e. one that is being taught in order to teach the concepts of programming.)
I cannot agree with this. Embedded in this argument is the idea that syntactic specialization towards pedagogy is a worthwhile goal rather than ramping up a pupil towards where they'd be able to function independently as a software engineer by giving them a solid theoretical and applied foundation.
Part of being an engineer is learning how the quirks of the language evolved, the history of how it got to be that way, and what it means in terms of the long term evolution of the language and ecosystem as collectively reasoned through by the eyes of skilled practitioners. You get to see the decision making process of language design, and how the plan became a prototype became a battle hardened tool that can adequately work in a variety of real situations, well enough to gain a significant plurality (or mindshare) for a specific real world use case.
Just because studying Latin is useful for understanding English at a deeper level doesn't mean it's a good idea to learn Latin before learning english. It doesn't change the fact that a) immersion is the best way to build fluency, and b) fluency is the goal, does it? What makes programming languages any different?
So, I'm thinking from an introduction in an academic setting, some people (in my limited teaching experience, most people) aren't planning to go on to become software developers - they just need some background for what they're actually studying. You're not being a strictly vocational trainer, and you're starting people from "this is a variable, this is an if" and getting them to "this is a sorting algorithm, this is a tree." I.e. the foundations of programming.
At this stage, keeping people away from excessive boilerplate ("public static void main" is confusing), libraries apart from something that makes the teaching process easier, version control, and so on all contributes to teaching the programming process, which is hard enough as it is.
By all means, introduce those things when they get to software engineering, but by that stage the need for a foundational language has passed and people should be able to pick and learn whatever languages or other tools suit their specific needs.
> Just because studying Latin is useful for understanding English at a deeper level doesn't mean it's a good idea to learn Latin before learning english.
The flaw with this analogy is that it's not about "at a deeper level", it's more like learning simple English and not getting bogged down with subjunctives and constructions like "I had had a hotdog", as those can come later and aren't important right now.
In an educational setting you need to be clear whether you're talking about Computer _Science_, _Engineering_ or trade. There is value in all 3 approaches but don't make the mistake of thinking they're all the same.
Using the term "foundational language" makes me think Science, which has very little overlap with the trade approach. An engineering approach stands somewhere in between, but still has very different objectives than science.
> There is value in all 3 approaches but don't make the mistake of thinking they're all the same.
I respectfully disagree, and would gladly take the counterpoint to that argument. You will find the intersection of the three inside of many real world engineering problems. On the contrary, I am skeptical of the idea that applications in any one particular area don't have corresponding mirror images in the other two. Based on achievements in all three (research, engineering and trade), it is my opinionated belief that a focus on the intersection is where you create compounding value. I would love to hear a compelling counter-argument.
What you are demonstrating is one of many ironies that one can see in academic writing. Here, the writing criticizes the rise of Veblenian entrepreneurship and the fall of innovation entrepreneurship, but ironically, this kind of a paper could be considered an instance of Veblenian entrepreneurship!
Perhaps that could be because Veblenian entrepreneurship, like most entrepreneurship, is made possible through higher margins. I always parade out this 2S Ventures post about the importance of margins [1] because it really drives the point home. On the contrary, "innovation" based businesses require a large variety of environmental factors to succeed, ranging from cultural ones to regulatory and logistic ones. And there is indeed no guarantee that an innovative business is necessarily one with higher gross margins than an incumbent whose products/services it would seek to unseat even if there is societal benefit, so the business may not intrinsically be attractive to investors.
So it is with this piece here. Its explanations of new business formation targeted at conspicuous consumption are targeted towards academics concerned with earlier explorations of these areas, rather than practitioners. I think the possibility of it being thought provoking for the first group while common sense for the second group is where the irony comes in -- presumably, it was intended to be the other way around!
Yup, you nailed it. Most companies are content to let this kind of anchoring and psychological inertia let them lose out on capitalizing on their investments, but let's remember that this isn't necessarily unintentional. Companies continue their ability to function sustainably by adequately utilizing and providing career trajectories for the majority of employees that work there, for many of whom the stress and risk management of trying to figure out how to get promoted "up or out" is not worthwhile. For some companies, it's important enough to retain high performing outliers that they put in place recapture, recalibration, or boomerang mechanisms (as another commenter wrote somewhere in this thread). But for others, it may just not be necessary.
One way to rephrase your question would be to take a look at the sum total of commodities markets, specifically the subset that includes natural resources (specifically precious metals) mineable on mars. How much of that market is bottlenecked by supply?
You can apply this approach to more complex commodities to theorize about the upper limits, but I think this is a good way to get started.
> specifically the subset that includes natural resources (specifically precious metals) mineable on mars. How much of that market is bottlenecked by supply?
IIRC, mining on Mars for export to Earth doesn't make much sense vs mining on an asteroid, since you're paying for transport through an extra gravity well.
Great, practical advice for companies of that size. We can debate about whether it's unfortunate that it's necessary (I'd tend to agree that it is), but learning how to do this is the basic block and tackling required to get things moving at BigCos.
You got it. As always, it's the gross margins. Cocaine has higher gross margins than most prescription drugs, which in and of themselves are almost pure margin -- nevermind that, the market demand for it is broad and deep globally. Cartel operators aren't dumb. On the contrary, they show much of the unsavory, warlord like aspects of doing many kinds of business where there are zero-sum dynamics like this -- they just don't even try and hide it.