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

211–220 of 286 posts

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

#211

Post by aidenn0 »

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?

Not all orchestras do blind auditions. Not all orchestras hold open auditions. You need both for nepotism to not give you a leg-up.

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

#212

Post by austhrow743 »

digging wrote: post #72
ipsi wrote: post #11

Reminds me of a couple of married friends of mine. The wife played a classical musical instrument (e.g., not an electric guitar) and had her sights set on being a professional. While working towards that she did a lot of teaching/practising/etc, and her students would often say something along the lines of "I'm so envious of all this time you have to practice music! How are you able to do it?!" and her reply was alwa…

my partner is a working artist and, though successful, would not be able to live in our city comfortably if they weren't with me (or someone else with similar income). it's depressing, although I'm thrilled to help. it means I can't easily quit if I want to pursue another interest. it means we both have incentive to stay together even if something goes wrong romantically. neither of these points are a problem for us…

How does that create incentive for you to stay with them if something goes wrong romantically?

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

#213

Post by Clubber »

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?

>What's your word worth to you?

My dad taught me the importance of being honest early on. It was very important to him and it's important to me. I teach my kids the same thing.

If you're a dishonest person, everyone will know it and treat you accordingly. It'll be the first thing out of someone's mouth when asked about you. It's not a shortcut. Even though some people can win that way, most don't.

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

#214

Post by klardotsh »

ipsi wrote: post #11

Reminds me of a couple of married friends of mine. The wife played a classical musical instrument (e.g., not an electric guitar) and had her sights set on being a professional. While working towards that she did a lot of teaching/practising/etc, and her students would often say something along the lines of "I'm so envious of all this time you have to practice music! How are you able to do it?!" and her reply was alwa…

Similar/tangent, even working in tech, I sometimes mention to folks how completely out of touch and out of reach the real estate market in the PNW is. "How?", they ask, forgetting that a single person living alone pays the full share of rent, and then only has a single income to save towards real estate.

Nearly 100% of the people I know under age 35 who own their dwelling are couples, with both employed (and an overwhelming majority of those couples have at least one STEM income in that "portfolio").

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

#215

Post by wnolens »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #198
wnolens wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yea that is a grind. I am a bit of a victim of privilege here. Had a career-defining job and was paid well. Getting ~60% of my time back to earn my cost of living + decent buffer was AMAZING.. for a while, but it ran out because the good parts of my previous job (people, learning, challenge, opportunity) were no longer there by default of my showing up. Part time gigs are self-employment gigs.

I hope you find it. Some folks are a good match for what I had. A best friend just got there and is an infinitely better fit (doesn't really care about work, has lots of hobbies, enjoys moving around, has community)

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

#216

Post by nomaxx117 »

Buttons840 wrote: post #188
nomaxx117 wrote: post #6

FWIW the open source scene (at least in the US) can often have very similar dynamics. I believe it was Ashley Williams who put it best by saying that in the Rust community (where I am), one's influence is determined by one's free time. I've noticed over time that in certain areas it can very much be those with the least experience on a subject (but the most free time) who wield the most influence.

You say it like it's a bad thing. I guess it's a bias to be aware of so the community can try to compensate, but there's really no other way. Power goes to those who are contributing. If I'm building an open-source compiler I'd love to give power to the world renowned experts on compilers, but unfortunately they are not participating.

If you're building something that has a big community and sees a lot of use, you've got a lot of different stakeholders with different needs. The folks contributing to the compiler, language, standard library, or build system directly are not your only stakeholders, nor are they your only contributors.

Successful languages don't become successful without a rich ecosystem behind them. The people responsible for those projects are probably more important to your continued success than anyone contributing to the language itself.

What processes you have makes a huge difference in terms of who you give power to. If you have formal processes that ensure that folks have time to weigh in on things, and you make it easy to follow what's going on (signal-to-noise ratio is important here!), you can get much more relevant feedback from a much larger and more important group of stakeholders than if you handle things in a noisy, fast-moving zulip.

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

#217

Post by JPws_Prntr_Fngr »

shtopointo wrote: post #123
sandworm101 wrote: post #113

>> If anyone should have a shot in the various New York music scenes first and foremost, it should be local kids like Billy.If anyone should have a shot in the various New York music scenes first and foremost, it should be local kids like Billy. New York? A city founded on repeated waves of immigration. The city that put "give us your tired masses" on a big statue in the harbor. New York is not a city setup for local…

Came in here to mention something similar. Seems wishful thinking that New York would owe something to anybody that grew up there. If anything, growing up there should give you the opportunity to have a network already, that would be a local's leg up... from kids you grew up with, to people you practiced music with etc. This might also be a case of a naive perspective from Billy thinking that the work is all that mat…

You seem to have missed the blogger's point, which is that NYC is in the process of locking out the entire class of artists to which the young musician belongs. A one in a million musician with superior networking skill, or unbelievable good looks, or luck, or whatever, may start making bank and secure his place in the city. That's not the point.

The blogger's point is that the game is rigged to the point where if you're not That Guy, you can gtfo. The reality is that there are now millions of international rich kids bringing their parents money to outbid you for that crumbling walkup. So don't feel bad about not being able to compete in this ultra-stacked game without working another job, young musician.

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

#218

Post by AlwaysRock »

Floegipoky wrote: post #36
vorpalhex wrote: post #9

As someone who has spent an amazing amount of time coding, it's not because someone was paying my rent. It's because I sacrificed things to be able to work on my art. I have never had my rent paid for. I did not have a secret pile of cash or someone funding me. "Everyone who made it when I couldn't was secretly wealthy" is an interesting take but it seems more like coping mechanism than reality.

Having studied both CS and music, IMO the skill threshold where you can get paid to code is a lot lower than where you can get paid to music (unless you get very, very lucky and get paid to music because of celebrity rather than skill).

lol I got paid to code when I had zero fucking idea what I was doing after compleating half a 3 month online part time bootcamp. It took me several years to get paid to do stand up and even then it was $150 here or $20 there. I was able to pay my entire rent exactly once from comedy.

It's hard to make money being an artist.

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

#219

Post by JPws_Prntr_Fngr »

solarmist wrote: post #202
WalterBright wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 thin…

I don't view keeping your word or not cheating against a unilateral agreement as a virtue. Doing the moral thing in many of those situations requires going against the laws or rules of those unjust systems. In other words, it requires cheating for the purpose of changing the system. Civil rights disobedience, Gandhi's fight for independence in India, fighting against monopolies, and unionizing all require rejecting o…

Sir, you appear to be arguing with the Arch-Boomer. The rules were written (and re-written, and re-re-written) for him for the better part of a century - do you think he's open to any other way?

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

#220

Post by aidenn0 »

gibbitz wrote: post #121
aidenn0 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see a list of jobs for which: 1. We generally value as a society 2. Two people both working the job and married to each other cannot afford to raise two children. There are some jobs which we romanticize as being this way (musicians and other artists being a big example), but are we okay with e.g. social workers all either starving, or from wealthy backgrounds?

Raising two children is a job in and of itself. Considering our children are the future's consumers, you'd think it would pay better. Teaching in public schools would definitely fit in this category.

> Teaching in public schools would definitely fit in this category.

Maybe not fresh-out-of-college but after 5ish years they almost certainly can afford it.

The playground supervisors probably can't though.

Post reply on HN