Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Be Good

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 209 posts

Re: Be Good

#111

Post by eb »

vesterr wrote: post #63
modoc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that "the very best hackers" can pick and choose. "Up-and-coming" != "the very best". Maybe they'll get to be the some of the very best with some experience (work or project) under their belt, and at that point, if it's great code/work, they can absolutely get a job (almost) anywhere. I'm not sure what the rest of your points have to do with the PG quote exactly. Yes there are many factors around what job w…

You said: "Up-and-coming" != "the very best". I'm not talking about up-and-coming skill-wise , I'm referring to level of fame or notoriety. What it really boils down to is whether you have enough money to just work on what interests you vs. what pays the bills. "they can absolutely get a job (almost) anywhere." Not really. There are far more jobs that require skills you don't have than skills you do.

Can you think of any examples where a particularly excellent hacker is stuck at a crappy job to pay the bills?

Re: Be Good

#112

Post by ericb »

yters wrote: post #106
ericb wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see some empirical evidence that moderate users are the exception, not the rule. Man smokes weed once a month in his home is not nearly so great a headline as "crack addict leaves baby at grocery store."

Uh, how much does the adult entertainment industry make compared to any other internet industry? I thought it was a truism that the internet runs on porn... Here's something I found by a quick google: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11640411/ Even without stats, it just seems like something that's blatantly obvious. It's a very common problem with couples for the guy to be lusting after other women. We, as a culture, are…

I find it ironic your empirical evidence is a sensationalistic article with no empirical evidence. I was hoping for better.

Porn makes money therefore it is abused? Lusting after other women predates the modern porn industry. For example, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife."

Very often our assumptions about what "must be" are wrong.

Re: Be Good

#113

Post by pg »

bdr wrote: post #30

Paul's thesis here seems to be a confused grasp at what others have described, more simply, as the benefits of capitalism: "A good company is honest. In a world of complete information, two parties will transact iff they both benefit. This positive-sum interaction creates wealth." What am I missing?

What am I missing?

http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html

Re: Be Good

#114

Post by yters »

ericb wrote: post #112
yters wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, how much does the adult entertainment industry make compared to any other internet industry? I thought it was a truism that the internet runs on porn... Here's something I found by a quick google: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11640411/ Even without stats, it just seems like something that's blatantly obvious. It's a very common problem with couples for the guy to be lusting after other women. We, as a culture, are…

I find it ironic your empirical evidence is a sensationalistic article with no empirical evidence. I was hoping for better. Porn makes money therefore it is abused? Lusting after other women predates the modern porn industry. For example, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife." Very often our assumptions about what "must be" are wrong.

Why is it sensational? I might look for stats later, but surely a certified professional in the field has some credibility.

"Porn makes money therefore it is abused"

That isn't what I'm saying. Porn makes so much more money than any other online industry that it seems very likely the money comes from abuse. Similar to why the drug trade is so lucrative.

Also, I did not say lust is a new phenomena. In fact, you agree with my point. Since it is such a common aspect of being a male throughout history, then it seems easy to infer men are likely to indulge in an easy outlet for eroticism.

Re: Be Good

#115

Post by towny777 »

There must be something in the air right now. I published an article about this very issue on March 27th (you can view it at http://uberdigi.blogspot.com/2008/03/secret-of-life-in-parti...). My main point is that being useful is the most important value in the participation age. If an individual or business makes usefulness their number one priority they increase their chance for success. In this case I think goodness and usefulness are synonymous.

I got this idea from Buckminster Fuller. He failed miserably until he had an epiphany that he would not concentrate on success, but rather on making himself a servant to the universe. Ultimately this meant that he would just start working on good and useful things. As a result, he became a controversial figure but also pretty successful.

Re: Be Good

#116

Post by rms »

ken wrote: post #81
andreyf wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazing story. Please post it?

Sorry, can't; jwecker beat me to it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1741

This is something that really needed a ? resubmit

Re: Be Good

#117

Post by phr »

bdr wrote: post #30

Paul's thesis here seems to be a confused grasp at what others have described, more simply, as the benefits of capitalism: "A good company is honest. In a world of complete information, two parties will transact iff they both benefit. This positive-sum interaction creates wealth." What am I missing?

Agreed. If you buy my house, that means I wanted your money more than I wanted to keep my house. So I've gained from the transaction. Likewise, you must have wanted the house more than the money. So you also gained. Barring fraud, we've each done the other a service.

The problem is that people either never learn this, or they forget it somewhere along the line.

Re: Be Good

#118

Post by bdr »

pg wrote: post #113
bdr wrote: post #30

Paul's thesis here seems to be a confused grasp at what others have described, more simply, as the benefits of capitalism: "A good company is honest. In a world of complete information, two parties will transact iff they both benefit. This positive-sum interaction creates wealth." What am I missing?

What am I missing? http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html

Yeah, I actually had wanted to edit the grandparent, but it was too late. Your talk yesterday was too rich for me to follow -- I spent the second half thinking about the first half -- and I had trouble following anything today. Sorry.

Re: Be Good

#119

Post by vesterr »

nostrademons wrote: post #86
vesterr wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'd imagine that if DHH really, truly wanted to work on the Linux kernel, he'd have no trouble getting hired to do so." That's pretty silly. Just because someone is famous for a Ruby project doesn't mean they'd know they first thing about low-level kernel code. "it's pretty obvious they wouldn't want to work on that" I'm not talking about working on something they DON'T want to work on. Obviously! I'm talking about…

People (usually) don't hire based on specific skillsets. They hire for talent and passion, and figure that if someone really wants to be working on that problem, they'll find a way to teach themselves what the need to know. My last job had two main projects - a Netbeans plugin and a JSF webapp. I had no JSF and no Netbeans experience, though I'd done Java Swing development before and written several PHP or Perl webap…

"They hire for talent and passion"

Microsoft used to say something very much like that.

But at the top of the application: "State your skillset".

...You use PHP, Perl, and Java? Not by choice, right?

Re: Be Good

#120

Post by bdr »

phr wrote: post #117
bdr wrote: post #30

Paul's thesis here seems to be a confused grasp at what others have described, more simply, as the benefits of capitalism: "A good company is honest. In a world of complete information, two parties will transact iff they both benefit. This positive-sum interaction creates wealth." What am I missing?

Agreed. If you buy my house, that means I wanted your money more than I wanted to keep my house. So I've gained from the transaction. Likewise, you must have wanted the house more than the money. So you also gained. Barring fraud, we've each done the other a service. The problem is that people either never learn this, or they forget it somewhere along the line.

One way to summarize that is to say that a moral* and successful business is necessarily helping people. However, there are other benefits (to your business) of acting morally: see the "Morale", "Help", and "Compass" sections of the essay. ;)

* "moral" may be too broad here, but "honest" is too narrow

Post reply on HN