61–70 of 84 posts
What does this paragraph intend to say: " For these men we sat with, I spent over 10.000 yuan on the program this evening. I took us to an expensive hotel, I paid the tips for all the girls, I ordered really expensive food. But when we spoke to these men, they never mentioned how much money they had. They never tried to impress me, in spite of me doing all this. " That (and the dog meat) bit seem like total non sequi…
How strange: the post does not actually give a reason for only wanting to go into business with people that chase money for the purpose of chasing money. It does not explain why the reason that people want money matters. It states a preference of the author, without a single justification.
I thought the justification was obvious - you don't want to build a relationship with a partner who will drop out for personal reasons.
Yes, of course I do, and the generalizations here are gross and condescending. You will not convince me that I do not want this. I lean towards the Comfort angle, but I also start tinkering and producing when I am bored, so I could hardly be considered to walk the lazy path. I look for freedom from lower-level concerns so as to begin address higher-level needs. Money provides a layer of abstraction. http://en.wikiped…
"Money provides a layer of abstraction." Wonderful way of saying it. Maybe it doesn't quite make sense, but I'm a sucker for applying technical concepts to more domestic concerns ;-)
Yes, of course I do, and the generalizations here are gross and condescending. You will not convince me that I do not want this. I lean towards the Comfort angle, but I also start tinkering and producing when I am bored, so I could hardly be considered to walk the lazy path. I look for freedom from lower-level concerns so as to begin address higher-level needs. Money provides a layer of abstraction. http://en.wikiped…
This is so true.
For those who say that getting money for the sake of getting money is a useless pursuit, no, it isn't. No one who isn't already rich is getting money strictly for the sake of getting money. They are doing it for an infinite number of reasons. Caricaturing them into rat-racey participants of Lifestyles Of The Rich and Famous, simply because they want to be rich, is despicable. Money is like energy. Just because I'm interested in acquiring a gigawatt of energy doesn't mean I want to use it for smelting aluminium. I can use energy for an infinite number of activities. That's why I want to be rich. It allows me to easily pick and choose what I want to do, without specializing in doing just that.
People here are showing a lot of dislike for the third category, those who want to make money. I think that's because of how the author describes them, not how they actually are. People who want to make money for money's sake love building things. They can't stand to sit still. They understand long-term relationships, and the smart ones learn that trust and inspiring leaders within your own and other organizations is…
The way I look at it, making money is a great competition because it has the largest and most talented pool of competitors you will ever find. You get to measure yourself against the world, give or take a few people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For most people, an 18K monthly income ($216K annualized) that is passive is most definitely considered "being rich".
Indeed. For me, 6 thousand monthly is "being rich". And so far, I have not been willing to do what it takes to get there (emigrate). I'm definitely a Category 2 guy so far :(
I'm guessing you're thinking along the lines of a funded startup, and access to capital and "deals" versus bootstrapping it yourself, but my guess is froo's startup is closer to the latter.
When you bootstrap it, you call the shots and there's little reason you can't do just as well living wherever you are!
Go for it.
I read maxklein's other story (about how programming is procrastination).
I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt now. To be blunt, he needs to work on how he communicates.
But, I think the gist of what he's trying to say is: there are certain things you need to do if you want to succeed well in business. You have to want to do business (the making money part), but that includes things far beyond programming (for example).
I think I see what he means about working with people who want to make money: they have to be in it for the long haul. But even people who would lose interest when they're rich have a long way to go while they're still (relatively speaking) poor.
You don't want to discount the Woz's of the world just because their hearts are in the tech. If you do, you lose.
This article getting to the front page is either an indication of the weaknesses of HN algorithms or the drop of quality of HN users who voted it up.
Sure it's provocative (maybe deliberately so, maybe not), but it's also well-written and engaging. I won't argue about the writing, but engaging should be pretty obvious: almost everyone involved in this thread disagrees with the author, but they're all clearly involved in the debate, right?
I don't like any of those categories. 1st group: starfucker douchebags, properly characterized by the OP. Prone to serve the "high-status" set they want to join as soon as they have access to those people, and therefore a liability to anyone who wants . 2nd group: contains a lot of clock-punching mediocrities, also correctly portrayed by OP. 3rd group: driven by empty ambition, likely psychopaths. These people are re…
This article getting to the front page is either an indication of the weaknesses of HN algorithms or the drop of quality of HN users who voted it up.
Why do you think that the article's popularity reflects badly on HN or HN's current users? Sure it's provocative (maybe deliberately so, maybe not), but it's also well-written and engaging. I won't argue about the writing, but engaging should be pretty obvious: almost everyone involved in this thread disagrees with the author, but they're all clearly involved in the debate, right?