41–50 of 207 posts
A theory that only works for people who are lucky enough to be surrounded by supportive people. Some people have the misfortune to know people whose usual reaction is throwing sand in other people's gears. People who crap on other people's plans. Just as good luck can compound, so can bad luck.
Incidentally, when folks at my current employer started talking about hiring someone for my role, they kept running into people who knew me and had a high opinion of me.
Networking works in many directions. But it only works if you don't go into it looking for it to work. I think the big key was that I wasn't out to gladhand with folks. I was just out to make friends over a shared passion. It gives an authenticity to your speech that people can see.
[0] Which now has a big web and database component, all in service to the VR app that I'm building.
I like this idea. It's simple and elegant. I am accidentally practising it. I make games. I tried and failed to get investement and partners. So I am making games alone. Last week I started streaming my daily work. I stream my the other screen display, such that I can decide what to show and what to hide. I told myself, streaming cost me no money and I might attract attention of partners and investors. Nothing unfold…
I would recommend doubling up exposure by recording your streams, then cutting up the best clips and releasing them as Youtube videos. Also posting these Youtube videos to Reddit when possible (obviously following their self-promotion rules)
Here is an example channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEhOhNgoZHI
Taleb talked about this with his recommendation to get exposure to randomness that has asymmetric upside, and is analogous to luck is preparedness meeting opportunity. What I like about the OP's model is it also explains the asymmetry of social media where people do very little at all and talk about is a lot because the kind of non-linear success we are aiming for is a function of exposure. When you have wealth of an…
I believe it’s filling a gap beyond being a better gold-like asset. Better gold = digitally portable, 24 hr liquidity, digital literate friendly, fixed cap, transactions (even with its limits), decentralized control, etc.
But the solidly fixed cap is more profound than I think most people recognize. Potentially, once Bitcoin finds its “true” price, it will continue to grow in value in proportion to all wealth in the economy - over the long run. So it won’t just be a hedge against downturns, but eventually a semi-stable way of sharing in overall increasing wealth in the economy.
I don’t know of another instrument that anyone can easily buy that might track (over the long run) with global wealth as apposed to particular entities or particular aspects of the economy.
So in that sense, anyone can participate in overall wealth growth. A very useful new tool!
OF COURSE, this is SPECULATION on my part. But I think the idea of a total global wealth correlated asset is new and useful.
Being passionate about something for a long time (not just a couple of hours or weeks) seems to be a rare quality. Too bad for those who lack it, as it seems to be a requirement for success in everything. There are so many posts that try to tell you how to get the most out of your passion, I haven't seen one that explains the origin of passion or whether it is possible to become passionate.
I haven't seen one that explains the origin of passion or whether it is possible to become passionate. --- As Bezos said, you can't choose your passion, your passion chooses you.
A theory that only works for people who are lucky enough to be surrounded by supportive people. Some people have the misfortune to know people whose usual reaction is throwing sand in other people's gears. People who crap on other people's plans. Just as good luck can compound, so can bad luck.
> A theory that only works for people who are lucky enough to be surrounded by supportive people. It's possible to change who surrounds you. By socializing in new bubbles, making new friends, or just plain moving to a new location.
If someone has had the bad luck of growing up surrounded by unsupportive people, the recognition and knowledge don't occur naturally.
The problem of long term socialization with assholes is that a person tends to be socialized to being an asshole. That facilitates new friendships with new assholes more than it facilitates new friendships with non-assholes. It facilitates socializing in asshole rich bubbles...etc.
Taleb talked about this with his recommendation to get exposure to randomness that has asymmetric upside, and is analogous to luck is preparedness meeting opportunity. What I like about the OP's model is it also explains the asymmetry of social media where people do very little at all and talk about is a lot because the kind of non-linear success we are aiming for is a function of exposure. When you have wealth of an…
When it comes to increase luck surface I think Clubhouse maybe will become one of the most important platforms.
GME case seems to exploit the possibility for “short attack” by flipping the table into a infinite price increase, because the hedge funds accidentally created more fake shares that there is shares in existence and now have to by back.
Short attack = Using the possibility brokers have to artificial creating fake shares to drive down the price, in combination with shorting stocks for earning money.
More detailed explanation: https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/11442671-gerald-klein/309...
The combination of Clubhouse and Reddit will probably be one of the most important “inventions” this decade. Where GME could wake up everyone?
There is no such thing as being lucky. It is just a matter of perspective. Luck is what happens when people spontaneously feel grateful.
Isn't a good hand in Texa's considered luck? Isn't being invited by M. Zuckerberg to help code a side project named thefacebook considered luck (whether or not you've accepted)?
I’ve had this old post from Marc Andreessen pinned in my mental browser for a long time now. There are four types of luck and you can influence three of them: Chance I is completely impersonal; you can't influence it. Chance II favors those who have a persistent curiosity about many things coupled with an energetic willingness to experiment and explore. Chance III favors those who have a sufficient background of soun…
Chance I is truly deus-ex-machina stuff you can't foresee nor plan for.
Chance II encourages randomness and serendipity, but those who lack the ability of discernment and proper focus risk being ADHD never focusing enough on anything to capture any opportunity, should it even emerge.
Chance III rewards those who have deepened their knowledge and have stubborn persistence to weather the inevitable rough patches. Because if it's not rough, then it's too obvious, and if it's too obvious, there's no real upside opportunity. You can plan for Chance III and prepare yourself for this.
Chance IV is black swan. It is the rarest of conditions where an eccentric hobby results in significant upside. You can't plan for this, and if you do pursue an eccentric hobby you should do it out of pure personal interest rather than planning for a black swan upside opportunity.
I have a feeling Marc Andreesen would consider himself to be Chance II or Chance III. And I question if his "luck" can truly be attributable to Chance II but rather his ability to "will" his fortune into being by virtue of being in Chance III.