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

Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

klangmag.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 286 posts

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#191

Post by WalterBright »

solarmist wrote: post #161
WalterBright wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is moral and what is legal are different. I understand and agree with that. "Having moral flexibility helps so much. Being actively willing to "fuck over" arbitrary, faceless entities makes all the difference. If you start looking at the law in terms of "how much does it cost to do whatever I want", then you are now effectively playing by the same rules as those who seek to control your life." This clearly adv…

> it is dishonorable to be a cheater because others are cheating I disagree with this. Cheating can be moral or immoral. Cheating just means not following the rules. At least as often as not, the rules are meant to maintain the status quo or benefit the existing organizations. Terms of Service (TOS) are great examples of this. Companies blatantly stick in illegal terms just because they can since it's expensive to ch…

> Cheating just means not following the rules

When you agree to follow the rules, and then cheat, that is dishonorable. Even if everyone else does it (the Lance Armstrong defense).

What's your word worth to you?

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#192

Post by patmorgan23 »

underlipton wrote: post #162
abeppu wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is definitely not my area, but in other contexts I have heard of blind auditions as being a common practice in orchestras (i.e. people auditioning literally are hidden from view while they play and evaluations are then based only on hearing one play) which improved gender diversity in hiring, but not really racial diversity. How does nepotism work in this system?

How do you find out about the audition? Also (though perhaps closer to a privilege issue than a nepotism issue): How did you find the teacher who helped you get ready for the audition? How did you "pay" for the practice time to prepare for the audition?

Many orchestras will hold open auditions. They'd post them on their website and probably a few regional music target outlets/websites.

Also networking, if you do gigs in the same region the orchestra is located you're bound to bump into a few of the members.

You can also just email the orchestra and ask when they hold auditions.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#193

Post by Buttons840 »

dataviz1000 wrote: post #64

“In the deepest hour of the night, confess to yourself that you would die if you were forbidden to write. And look deep into your heart where it spreads its roots, the answer, and ask yourself, must I write?” ― Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet Reminds me of that quote. Rilke, a poet, was an apprentice to, Auguste Rodin, a sculptor, who taught Rilke how to be an artist. Although different disciplines, the n…

> In the deepest hour of the night, confess to yourself that you would die if you were forbidden to write.

A quick check of the suicide statistics shows that many have confessed this to themselves.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#194

Post by bluefirebrand »

isk517 wrote: post #160
bluefirebrand wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what's a marriage for except creating the circumstances from which to grow This is absolutely not in line with how most people I interact with seem to view marriage nowadays, especially not my fellow university students back when I attended. From my perspective I think younger people mostly seem to view marriage as restricting, or backward and outdated, not an opportunity for something better. I especially think yo…

I imagine those young people that see themselves being in a position to provide financial support might find marriage restricting, backward and/or outdated.

Maybe, but I think it's not limited just to the "breadwinner" side.

Among people I know who are my age, there is a real attitude that they should not have to attach themselves to another person. They want to self actualize without compromise, so if marriage (or honestly, even monogamy) is not something they want they shouldn't have to do it.

Part of this mentality is totally fair. No one should be forced to marry, or live monogamously or anything else if they don't want.

Where the disconnect lies is the self actualizing without compromising thing. They are often angry at the world because they cannot live their way, but often finding a supportive partner would allow them to, or at least a lot closer to what they want than when they are struggling on their own.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#195

Post by mrguyorama »

digging wrote: post #144
mrguyorama wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>laws are for the powerless. But understanding that doesn't give you any power back. Knowing that you can just pay large fines to do illegal business things doesn't help someone who isn't running a business or can afford to pay those large fines

nope, you're still in grave danger if you're not wealthy. but it does give the insight that we don't have to play by their rules when we realize most of those rules only exist to make it harder for us to play.

"Not playing by the rules" can't help you if not playing by the rules requires resources. That's the WHOLE POINT of the system as designed. You as an individual cannot do anything outside the system even if you know it's rigged unless you already had the resources required to play outside the system.

It allows you to maybe optimize for a different state within the system, but that state will still be one that you are "allowed" to optimize for.

Knowing the casino is rigged does not give you the ability to beat the house. It only allows you to better decide to go home, but in reality there's no equivalent to "going home".

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#196

Post by WalterBright »

solarmist wrote: post #187
WalterBright wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honor is independent of the rules. (Honor isn't about fairness or equity, either. It's its own thing.)

I'm sorry, but "you'll know it when you see it" and "if you have to ask, you'll never know aren't" don't mean much to me. Tell me what standard of conduct do you ascribe to if fairness or equity aren't included? It sounds like you have an unrealistically strict definition of honor if those aren't included.

> Tell me what standard of conduct do you ascribe to if fairness or equity aren't included?

I never said that being honorable was the only thing I aspire to. Fairness and equity are different topics. It shares some aspects with morality, but is not interchangeable with morality.

Honor is things like keeping your word. Not taking things from others that aren't yours. Not trying to trick or force others into doing things. Not being abusive towards others. Not betraying a confidence. Not cheating.

Is dishonesty such a hard concept?

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#197

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

abeppu wrote: post #152
aidenn0 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spots are limited, but it's not super hard. This depends on the instrument and your location. If you play a popular instrument (say the violin) in a metro area with just one orchestra (some have zero!) then you ain't getting on that orchestra any way short of nepotism. If you live within commuting distance of multiple orchestras, there are more spots, but you still aren't going to be playing violin in the orchestra…

This is definitely not my area, but in other contexts I have heard of blind auditions as being a common practice in orchestras (i.e. people auditioning literally are hidden from view while they play and evaluations are then based only on hearing one play) which improved gender diversity in hiring, but not really racial diversity. How does nepotism work in this system?

It still feels incredibly easy to cheat that system if you were motivated? Pre-share the candidates order list, chosen candidate will signal with an additional three note bar on the finale, etc.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#198

Post by bluefirebrand »

wnolens wrote: post #173
bluefirebrand wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> personally, I've made it my goal as a SWE to get a 4-day work week and/or shorter work days. even if it means a pay tradeoff. Part time work week + fully remote is the dream for me I don't want to spend my whole life working to make more money than I realistically am ever going to spend just to save enough to retire just to die a month into my retirement.

Had the same attitude as you, and achieved this (20h wk, remote, 6fig). Was still miserable. Maybe for you it's only the shape of life that is the difference. But personally it was the quality of the things that filled that shape. Those tradeoffs weren't obvious at the beginning (ex: the kind of coding gigs that let me work 20h wks were boring as shit and dead ends). Best of luck. There's a balance out there for ever…

You may be right, that it would make me miserable too.

Personally I haven't ever worked anywhere the problems were super stimulating or interesting and mostly have worked in fairly dead end places. My advancement has been almost 100% from changing companies, which is kind of a tedious grind.

I think I would prefer to find somewhere that pays enough to support my home and needs, and have more free time.

I also suspect you were earning more with those 20 hours than I am now, since I'm low 6figs (in CAD no less) and 40+ hours a week.

But you are definitely right, it could be the grass is greener.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#199

Post by solarmist »

WalterBright wrote: post #191
solarmist wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is dishonorable to be a cheater because others are cheating I disagree with this. Cheating can be moral or immoral. Cheating just means not following the rules. At least as often as not, the rules are meant to maintain the status quo or benefit the existing organizations. Terms of Service (TOS) are great examples of this. Companies blatantly stick in illegal terms just because they can since it's expensive to ch…

> Cheating just means not following the rules When you agree to follow the rules, and then cheat, that is dishonorable. Even if everyone else does it (the Lance Armstrong defense). What's your word worth to you?

Wow, that is an extreme point of view.

How could you even square that view with something like the civil disobedience of Gandhi or MLK Jr.?

When I'm in a situation where one party is able to make demands unilaterally, then my word is worthless. And I will gleefully disregard portions of these agreements.

On the other hand, when all parties have at least some consideration, my word is worth its weight in gold.

Re: Lifers, Dayjobbers, and the Independently Wealthy: A Letter to a Former Student

#200

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

Mistletoe wrote: post #166
ketzo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Listen, can we all agree to stop calling any expenditure of money without a direct expectation of return a "zero interest rate phenomenon"? "Starving artists" have existed for millenia. The arts patronage system began either or thousands of years ago, depending on who you ask. People have paid lots of money for gold jewelry basically since we figured out how to pull it out of the ground. I saw someone call dog-walker…

But dog walking businesses weren’t getting $1.35 billion dollar valuations before the interest rates were zero for so many years in an unprecedented way. https://www.geekwire.com/2021/pet-sitting-marketplace-rover-... Hit max- https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/interest-rate

Yeah, but that could just be SoftBank and its desire to light money on fire. I heard a podcast about a different fund who wanted to invest in a dog walking business, but SoftBank offered a huge multiple on what this group thought the company was worth.
Post reply on HN