> It was heavy metal or bust and I didn’t care what anyone else thought. Status among my friends was determined not by how popular you were, but by your music abilities
These statements appear to be in conflict
Choose your status game wisely
151–160 of 344 posts
Re: Choose your status game wisely
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually feel pressure to dress down in my role as a SWE: hoodies and jeans seem like the norm, and forget about wearing a suit (lol!) or even a dress shirt. I've found black/grey turtlenecks to be a nice middle ground, and apart from the occasional "one more thing" (Steve Jobs) or Elizabeth Holmes comment, those tend to work well.
> I actually feel pressure to dress down in my role as a SWE: hoodies and jeans seem like the norm, and forget about wearing a suit (lol!) or even a dress shirt. If Vint Cerf can wear a three-piece suit, so can you! :)
Agree wholeheartedly
Re: Choose your status game wisely
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Status usually represents having done some social good. The more good you do, the higher your status. If you look at it as a measure of how much good a person has done, then it might not seem so contemptable. Who did more good for more people - a hermit or Bill Gates?
> Status usually represents having done some social good. For whatever value of "good" applies in that particular social network, yes. But that value of "good" might not be anything we would call "good" in ordinary language. For example, Bill Gates does have high status, but he has it because he is rich, not because of the particular things he did that made him rich. Those things happened to be reasonably beneficial…
People make money by providing value to other people. The people who provide the most perceived value have the most money. It is a signifier of status whether you like it or not.
Most people who make money are providing a service to many people, or to someone else with a lot of money (who therefore provided value previously). Care to provide a counterexample?
Re: Choose your status game wisely
#154Not sure how this will sit with the HN crowd, but a couple of years back I got into menswear, and I derive some pleasure from being the "best dressed guy" at the office. Beyond personal opinions on that particular hobby, I can confirm first hand that living at the intersection of two or more personas (e.g. a programmer that dresses well) brings a peculiar sense of joy. I might no have much status in either of those c…
I have observed multiple times if I 'suit up' at work it's like I'm wearing a shield, it's a strange game. It has to be a good suit though, naturally enough. Edit: this is when dealing with the business folk that is, techies don't care.
[deleted]
Re: Choose your status game wisely
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My perspective is that atheism is not a lack of worship, but a lack of faith. Can you define what you mean by "faith"? * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z4wKCsD59Q * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_4PSgFjtvI > Faith requires you suspend critical thinking on a predetermined set of claims. People like Thomas Aquinas would disagree. * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-... * https://www.goo…
Faith was always described to me as a belief in something that cannot be proven. In my experience, however, especially in terms of Christianity, faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven, and - crucially - can be disproven . To put it more clearly, faith detaches a claim from reality, and puts it into a realm above criticism. As a small example, the idea that the first human male was created directly by a…
The definition of faith as believing in something that can be disproven is a contradiction. You believe your religion is disproven, that is why you no longer have faith in it.
Re: Choose your status game wisely
#156It's worth noting what arena you are playing in too. The issue with status these days is that the internet has us all performing on a world stage. Relative to everyone in my real life community, I usually have an edge when it comes to fitness. Relative to the world? I may as well be a mouse! I am pretty quick on the bike, second fastest on strava yesterday at my local, and a pretty nifty bike! But relative to instagram? I am slow as a slug, and I may as well have found my bike in a dumpster, with these 20k rigs that get all the attention.
So I guess my approach is to try and stay on local communities, or niche online communities. Not to be the best in them, just because I am not the best and don't need to be to enjoy my life and improve, so it's more relatable than the exceptionalism on the broader net.
Re: Choose your status game wisely
#157Not sure how this will sit with the HN crowd, but a couple of years back I got into menswear, and I derive some pleasure from being the "best dressed guy" at the office. Beyond personal opinions on that particular hobby, I can confirm first hand that living at the intersection of two or more personas (e.g. a programmer that dresses well) brings a peculiar sense of joy. I might no have much status in either of those c…
I actually feel pressure to dress down in my role as a SWE: hoodies and jeans seem like the norm, and forget about wearing a suit (lol!) or even a dress shirt. I've found black/grey turtlenecks to be a nice middle ground, and apart from the occasional "one more thing" (Steve Jobs) or Elizabeth Holmes comment, those tend to work well.
Well the flip side is that when we want to dress nice, it's because we like to be dandy going to a concert, and aren't trying to compete with coworkers or anyone else.
Re: Choose your status game wisely
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually feel pressure to dress down in my role as a SWE: hoodies and jeans seem like the norm, and forget about wearing a suit (lol!) or even a dress shirt. I've found black/grey turtlenecks to be a nice middle ground, and apart from the occasional "one more thing" (Steve Jobs) or Elizabeth Holmes comment, those tend to work well.
> I actually feel pressure to dress down in my role as a SWE: hoodies and jeans seem like the norm, and forget about wearing a suit (lol!) or even a dress shirt. If Vint Cerf can wear a three-piece suit, so can you! :)
Vint Cerf godfathered the Internet, he is a three piece suit.
Re: Choose your status game wisely
#159Sometimes you see articles like this that insist that you have to play a status game of some kind etc etc. The hacker in me sees that as even more reason to look for examples of ways alleviate myself of such nonsense. If you read books like "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman" you run across stories of him playing with Status games and poking fun at them. Though I'm sure one could argue Feynman had status games he play…
Status usually represents having done some social good. The more good you do, the higher your status. If you look at it as a measure of how much good a person has done, then it might not seem so contemptable. Who did more good for more people - a hermit or Bill Gates?
For sure. But have you worked at any non-profits? Most of the folks I know who do have a hard time, to put it mildly.
I've done my share of social-good tech companies, as well as engineer's dream-job stuff. After reflecting on this article, I realized that:
1. I finally enjoy my tech job after I stopped chasing the status game in tech.
2. I finally enjoy my hobbies after I stopped chasing the status game in those hobbies too!
I wish things were different on the social-good front. I just try to do good whenever I can in the regular day-to-day world, plus some donations here and there.
Re: Choose your status game wisely
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Status usually represents having done some social good. For whatever value of "good" applies in that particular social network, yes. But that value of "good" might not be anything we would call "good" in ordinary language. For example, Bill Gates does have high status, but he has it because he is rich, not because of the particular things he did that made him rich. Those things happened to be reasonably beneficial…
People make money by providing value to other people. The people who provide the most perceived value have the most money. It is a signifier of status whether you like it or not. Most people who make money are providing a service to many people, or to someone else with a lot of money (who therefore provided value previously). Care to provide a counterexample?
Bain Capitol is a classic example. They bought companies, sold off their assets, wrote themselves huge bonuses, bankrupted the companies, and wrote them off as losses to avoid paying taxes on any of the above. They made their money by destroying value, not providing any.
And then there's multigenerational wealth. Rich brats don't provide intrinsic value, but they're born rich. They don't get that way by providing value. Their ancestors may have stolen their wealth, so they didn't get there by providing value either.