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

No More “Insight Porn”

jakobgreenfeld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 323 posts

Re: No More “Insight Porn”

#251

Post by googlryas »

thenerdhead wrote: post #97
recyclelater wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jocko willinck (and many others I am sure) likes to state that you can’t rely on motivation because it comes and goes. Rely on discipline, build habits using discipline if you want to get anything done. A trite but in my opinion helpful statement is discipline equals freedom.

This is not a new idea. Just a new messenger for the modern era. Marcus Aurelius was talking about this thousands of years ago. > At dawn, when you have trouble getting out of bed, tell yourself: “I have to go to work — as a human being. What do I have to complain of, if I’m going to do what I was born for — the things I was brought into the world to do? Or is this what I was created for? To huddle under the blankets…

I think this point about spiders would be more compelling if we actually saw that some spiders were lazy and some were not, and the lazy ones died and the non lazy ones didn't. The fact is that spiders and birds and whatever animal just generally doesn't have the desire to "lay in bed under the blankets". If nature gave us the desire to do so, doesn't that mean it isn't wrong if we're using nature as a guide?

Re: No More “Insight Porn”

#252

Post by bumby »

danaris wrote: post #147
bombcar wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't want to admit it involves hard work and luck - they'd rather think that Bill Gates got to where he is because of his parents (even though there are thousands/millions with similar parents and backgrounds who didn't get even close). Because one line of thought leads to: "I couldn't do anything, the game was rigged from the start" and the other leads to "I didn't do as much as I could have done."

But the true answer lies between the two. The game is rigged. But that merely makes it less likely that someone who's on the wrong side can succeed, not impossible. You do have to do as much as you can, with what you're given, regardless of what it is. The real key, though, is that this tells us what we, as a society, need to change . If we genuinely value entrepreneurship and innovation, we need to create a universa…

Isn’t this what limited liability corporations help ensure?

People need a way to limit downsides, not have zero downside.

It’s like giving a student a service chance at a test to help ensure they learn the material. But giving them unlimited attempts with no risk doesn’t create the same environment.

Re: No More “Insight Porn”

#253

Post by TuringTest »

throwaway98797 wrote: post #248
TuringTest wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> let’s be honest many successful people work hard > there’s also a bunch unsuccessful hard working people The key point is that the number of unsuccessful hard working people is humongously larger than successful hard working people, so working hard does not really correlate with having success, no matter what the survivor bias tell them.

probably philosophical difference “so you’re saying there’s a chance!?” is good enough for me, plus when i work hard i feel better even when it doesn’t pay off.

Right. It's the same reason why people buy lottery tickets.

Re: No More “Insight Porn”

#254

Post by Uehreka »

chowells wrote: post #211
bombcar wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Get lucky" is always the key - however, you can increase your "luck surface" by doing certain things (for example, you couldn't have gotten lucky if you hadn't started the company, nor if you hadn't bothered to talk to people).

No one ever talks about the opportunity cost of building up a "luck surface". What is the expected value of doing so? What do you have to sacrifice to do so? Is there any evidence the EV is positive, or is this just another selection bias?

Any time you spend trying and failing to quantify the EV of luck surface area is time you could be spending building your luck surface area.

Re: No More “Insight Porn”

#256

Post by Silverback_VII »

mcguire wrote: post #236
Silverback_VII wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

who wants to be "the brains" behind something which is not of his own? Only your own cause and goal can generate the willpower and stamina necessary to ultimately create something great. As Nietzsche said: "He who cannot obey himself will be commanded. That is the nature of living things."

" who wants to be "the brains" behind something which is not of his own? " Them as don't want to live in cardboard boxes but don't have some part of the resources necessary to "create something great"?

I will respond with another citation of the same author: "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.”

The brains who you use to achieve someone else's goal instead of using it to become what you truly are is somewhat wasted. don't you think?

Re: No More “Insight Porn”

#257

Post by sangnoir »

steveBK123 wrote: post #191
bombcar wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Get lucky" is always the key - however, you can increase your "luck surface" by doing certain things (for example, you couldn't have gotten lucky if you hadn't started the company, nor if you hadn't bothered to talk to people).

“Why successful founders never get their groceries delivered”

...followed up a few years later with "I was wrong in my previous article and didn't go far enough. Read my part 2: Why successful founders should deliver groceries". You may get your chance to pitch a famous VC partner while you instacart/doordash.

Re: No More “Insight Porn”

#258

Post by cwp »

wizofaus wrote: post #247
cwp wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. That's like flipping a coin and then saying the probability of getting heads is 1. The fact that something happened is not proof that it was guaranteed to happen.

Re-read what the GP claimed. Given the initial conditions of the universe, the probability it might eventually lead to my own existence may well be infinitessimal, but in the context of the probability of me winning the lottery (for example), my existence is already a given.

No, what he was saying was that the probability of you winning the lottery is quite high compared to the probability of you existing in the first place. His point was that mathematicians sometimes try to contextualize these very low probability scenarios so that lay-people don't collapse them all into a single "basically impossible" bucket. They're not wrong, but it's not a useful way to think about whether buying a lottery ticket is a good idea.

Re: No More “Insight Porn”

#259

Post by spoonjim »

deltree7 wrote: post #237
nickff wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, one extreme example is buying lottery tickets; it's the best way to expose yourself to the potential upside of winning the lottery, yet the expected value is quite negative. That example is quite bracing, but I think it points out that there are many ways to build this 'luck surface', and the expected values of each are probably very different, and likely situational.

Expected value is really a dumb way to evaluate lottery tickets. I can't believe even supposedly good mathematicians use it. The next dumb way to evaluate lottery tickets is to compare it with other long odds (lightning strikes, marrying your favorite actor). If you want to play along, the probability of you winning the lottery is 10000000000000x more favorable than the probability of you existing in this universe. B…

Buying a single $1 lottery ticket is fine. But I see people in gas stations etc. who look like they are spending a very large fraction of their disposable income on lottery tickets. People asking for "$60 of X" when they look like they make $50K a year or less. That's fucking insane and if they make 10000x worse decisions in their life it must be like putting their fingers in the electrical socket.
Post reply on HN