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

The Dead Planet Theory

arealsociety.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 86 posts

Re: The Dead Planet Theory

#41

Post by peoplelikelikes »

vitehozonage wrote: post #33

I think I disagree with the article. I think it is true that if you choose to expend time and energy on something that few people spend effort on , then you can become better than most people at that one thing. However, it seems that the article is trying to say that is true for everything and for everyone, and i disagree with that. The missing key factor is that you have to find something unpopular and easy which wi…

Plus, the premise comes with a broken assumption regarding distribution and goals between social media and actual human activity.

A friend group has 20 people and 3 making an effort. It's easy to stand out. A sports club has 200 members and 5 stars. Social media has 120 million users. And a screen shows 2 posts at a time. Maybe 10-ish if you're using a non-stupid version of a platform.

A lot of people just want the validation of having low stakes engagement. Likes. Upvotes. Views. Shares. Things that happen absentmindedly or even automatically. Just a small indicator that people saw you, and are generally satisfied even with relatively little of it. So what if that a fraction gets 99 bajillion of likes out of the 100 total. The remaining bajillion still means a small time artist who just wants to show their latest work gets to have 100 people who like it and 2 or 3 who comment.

And that's all they'll realistically amount to while being VERY active. To fall for the trap of thinking "it just takes participation to get there" falls straight in the face of the fact it's a competition of scale.

Speaking of which, so is job hunting. Recruiters even get spammed on the phone. I wish job listings had to be on public platforms with a lot more rules honestly.

Re: The Dead Planet Theory

#42

Post by shermantanktop »

vitehozonage wrote: post #33

I think I disagree with the article. I think it is true that if you choose to expend time and energy on something that few people spend effort on , then you can become better than most people at that one thing. However, it seems that the article is trying to say that is true for everything and for everyone, and i disagree with that. The missing key factor is that you have to find something unpopular and easy which wi…

The difference is between getting into the top 10% vs getting into the top 0.1% (or add as many zeroes as you want).

Top 10% just takes a bit of intentional work, rather than just chasing dopamine hits you might get as a casual. And that’s why the 90% aren’t losers or suckers… they just have different priorities.

Re: The Dead Planet Theory

#43

Post by nextlevelwizard »

Legend2440 wrote: post #36
vitehozonage wrote: post #33

I think I disagree with the article. I think it is true that if you choose to expend time and energy on something that few people spend effort on , then you can become better than most people at that one thing. However, it seems that the article is trying to say that is true for everything and for everyone, and i disagree with that. The missing key factor is that you have to find something unpopular and easy which wi…

>If you read a few books on mathematics you think you're easily going to become one of the top mathematicians? No - but you will easily become more educated in math than most people. 99.9% of people couldn't tell you the difference between a derivative and a integral. It's not about becoming an expert. You don't need to be the best in the world to be usefully good at something.

I have an engineering degree and I can’t remember the difference since I have literally never needed either since school.

Just like examples in the post it self, sure you can get better fast, but if no one cares why bother? Oh you got a bit better ELO in chess, nice, what now? Now your average friends don’t want to play you and you aren’t good enough to beat anyone at the chess club. So either you quit or you have to dedicate yourself.

Same with the shooter game. Do you really want to play a video game competitively? If yea then go ahead but you need to do more than just play to get good which again probably means switching friend circles

Re: The Dead Planet Theory

#44

Post by saagarjha »

asdff wrote: post #24
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #2

One of my strongest recommendations to people on social networks is to engage down-thread. Talk to other people, not just the top post. Get beyond your glancing para-social relationship, and expand your Metcalfe-factor by commenting and liking other people's engagement. Especially for new or young networks, a lot of people are truly starved for engagement & don't see the pattern of being engaged with . Engagement has…

What sucks about HN in particular for this is that as soon as you start engaging with a thread you are very interested in, getting a lot of replies, etc, you are locked out of commenting due to the flame war rules. Then whenever you are unlocked again later in the day perhaps, you've forgotten all about that discussion and have moved on. Whatever potential discourse that was there nipped in the bud.

The more you comment the less the flamewar rules apply.

Re: The Dead Planet Theory

#46

Post by te_chris »

vitehozonage wrote: post #33

I think I disagree with the article. I think it is true that if you choose to expend time and energy on something that few people spend effort on , then you can become better than most people at that one thing. However, it seems that the article is trying to say that is true for everything and for everyone, and i disagree with that. The missing key factor is that you have to find something unpopular and easy which wi…

Why does it matter if it’s popular? This is neoliberal bullshit. It’s not a competition if you want to know more and then go and acquire that knowledge

Re: The Dead Planet Theory

#47

Post by Tainnor »

serviceberry wrote: post #38
vitehozonage wrote: post #33

I think I disagree with the article. I think it is true that if you choose to expend time and energy on something that few people spend effort on , then you can become better than most people at that one thing. However, it seems that the article is trying to say that is true for everything and for everyone, and i disagree with that. The missing key factor is that you have to find something unpopular and easy which wi…

> If you read a few books on mathematics you think you're easily going to become one of the top mathematicians? No, but so what? The guy behind 3Blue1Brown probably isn't one of the top mathematicians of his era. But he's having quite an impact. He turned explaining fairly basic math concepts in mathematics into a lucrative job. And who wrote the textbooks you're referring to? Probably not any of the top 10 living ma…

All those people you mention have studied mathematics for a long time, Grant Sanderson has probably studied it the "least" but that still means a BSc in his case which is not something you accomplish in a weekend. All the textbook authors are usually professors.

Re: The Dead Planet Theory

#49

Post by Earw0rm »

krykp wrote: post #18

There are multiple points in the article, each of them probably deserving its own article. I want to focus on the two. One is the peer effect. Who you surround yourself with absolutely matters. This applies to the content consumption, and this applies to your surroundings too. This can be as simple as going to the library, having surrounded by other people working and researching is great, even if it's just schoolwor…

There are lots of obligations in life.

And bros in their late 20s / early 30s (as I suspect the author is) tend to underestimate the extent to which that's true.

Kids is the obvious one, but hidden claims on time and capacity are much more common than some think.

Re: The Dead Planet Theory

#50

Post by dehrmann »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #43
Legend2440 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you read a few books on mathematics you think you're easily going to become one of the top mathematicians? No - but you will easily become more educated in math than most people. 99.9% of people couldn't tell you the difference between a derivative and a integral. It's not about becoming an expert. You don't need to be the best in the world to be usefully good at something.

I have an engineering degree and I can’t remember the difference since I have literally never needed either since school. Just like examples in the post it self, sure you can get better fast, but if no one cares why bother? Oh you got a bit better ELO in chess, nice, what now? Now your average friends don’t want to play you and you aren’t good enough to beat anyone at the chess club. So either you quit or you have to…

>> 99.9% of people couldn't tell you the difference between a derivative and a integral.

> I have an engineering degree and I can’t remember the difference

Really? I realized I forgot the mechanics of computing the closed-form solutions (like you, I used this type of calculus for maybe four years of my life), but the idea of derivatives being the rate of change stuck with me.

Post reply on HN