What happened to nerds? • Hacker News Board

Re: What happened to nerds?

#381

Post by insane_dreamer » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 2:38 PM UTC

I think the turning point was not 10 years ago, but 15 years ago with Facebook's IPO.

Since then, the only thing that's mattered in tech is "how will you monetize", and monetization doesn't mean a modestly successful software company, no, it's a billion dollar unicorn or bust. Or getting your company to a high valuation and then sell and gtfo, rinse and repeat.

So why do you get? The people who care very much about making a billion dollars. And for the most part, people who care very much about that are assholes.

Re: What happened to nerds?

#382

Post by BoxOfRain » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 2:38 PM UTC

buckle8017 wrote: post #309

BoxOfRain wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Politics is irreducible from human affairs, privatization doesn't eliminate politics. It relocates it to a different set of actors. We ideologically privatised the water sector into regional private monopolies in the UK, and anyone who's had experience with the water monopolies knows this is the truth.

Can't really compare a natural monopoly (water utility) that should be the government with something that isn't a natural monopoly (research).

I think you can in the limited sense it supports the idea privatisation doesn't remove politics, just relocates it and often into a less democratically accountable place to boot.

Whenever a person or group has power over another person or group, politics necessarily exists. I don't think this fact can be avoided, as much as advocates of privatisation often argue that it can be.

Re: What happened to nerds?

#383

Post by dasil003 » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 2:39 PM UTC

TrackerFF wrote: post #132

keiferski wrote: post #78

I don’t know why you’d think “being interested in nerdy stuff like computers” would somehow translate into virtuous behavior. They seem like entirely different things to me, in the sense that I wouldn’t expect a writer, or a baker, or a chef to have typical ethical behaviors as a group. “What happened” was just that some people got rich and powerful and their real personalities showed through. This is not a new thing…

People have made "nerdiness" a premium because other nerds view it as passion. The rationale is that if you craft something out of passion, it will somehow be better than. I think it also comes down to the fact that many tech nerds view engineering more as a art than cold engineering, and they view themselves as artists and artisans. There's also this age-old belief that if you do something out of passion, you're wil…

I agree with you there's a lot of gatekeeping around "passion" for tech. I don't like that framing, but having seen the effect of success and the type of people it has brought into the industry that would never have even considered a few decades ago, I see why people look for supplemental signals, even if the ones they pick are wrong and effectively just shallow tribalism.

However I think this really misses the mark:

> Probably one of the most ego-crushing realizations (if you're a nerd) is to discover that there are people out there MUCH more talented and higher performing than what you'll ever be, but with none of the obsession or pride. In other profession that's not really a topic. You can be a top performer in other professions, without a deep interest, clock out 4 daily, and never think about work outside work.

This is a strawman based around immature, fragile-ego individuals. There are plenty of nerds who realize intelligence, talent, and resourcefulness are completely orthogonal traits from interest in tech. The former is over-represented in online discourse, and the latter is more common in engineering leadership in top companies. You can't really be a top-performer in any large-scale effort without realizing that there are top performers in all domains, and they have insights you don't have. You can't do great things if you don't leave space to learn about your own blind spots, and have a productive dialogue with people who have a completely different mental framework than you.

Re: What happened to nerds?

#384

Post by gnopgnip » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 2:39 PM UTC

hattmall wrote: post #371

vidarh wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The challenge is to distinguish "think about hard problems for a long period of time, only speak up when you have something positive to contribute" from slacking. I am not arguing for bullshit metrics - I personally love working on things that may or may not pay off on a 10 year+ horizon and wish I could do more of that. But at the same time I've seen enough people coast to accept that most places that either isn't -…

We shouldn't really seek to punish "slacking off" though. Because when the opposite of valuable contribution isn't slacking off it becomes unintentional sabotage. It's a lot less noticeable in jobs that don't have immediate consequences for poor performance, but it really stands out in jobs where it immediately matters like construction. In a lot of cases everyone is getting paid the same but talent stands out and so…

If you don’t “punish” slacking off your institution falls behind even if there is no sabotage

Re: What happened to nerds?

#385

Post by hattmall » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 2:39 PM UTC

nerdsniper wrote: post #287

sumitkumar wrote: post #55

This happens in any industry where value/status are at a premium. Finance, Law, VC guys were good too in the beginning but when the value/status change happens it attracts certain kind of guys who are average in talent but excel in demonstrating value and social management of the value/status. Another change which has happened recently is that the economics of engagement farming have become common place wisdom as alr…

Law was good people when? During the era of the 3/5ths compromise? Dredd Scott? Plessy? Lochner v NY? Buck v Bell? Korematsu? Finance was good people when? When Swiss banks captured all the war spoils of WW2? When they ran Penny Auctions during the Great Depression? When they financed slave ships? When the Medici financed endless war across Europe? I’m not saying people are all awful, but I don’t think there’s any “b…

I think you miss the point, it's not that they were morally good or only in pursuit of lofty goals. But the culture was different and the profession wasn't dominated by monetary opportunity seekers. Look back in historical newspapers and you won't find a single ad for personal injury attorneys.

Re: What happened to nerds?

#386

Post by tsumnia » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 2:40 PM UTC

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #107

dolia wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that too many people are confusing arguments they agree with with logical arguments. Most of people, when they claim that something is rational or logical, actually mean that it's a position that they agree with. I have no reason to believe that back in the day when internet was only for nerds the situation was different.

> I have no reason to believe that back in the day when internet was only for nerds the situation was different. Strong disagree. Having lived those times, it really really was different, and there are a bunch of reasons for it. 1. First, back then (90s, early 00s) there was very little financial incentive to participate in discussions. BBSs, IRC, forums etc. were mostly non commercial. People joined without any expe…

Just some counterpoints:

> 3. Politics was much less divisive back then. There was political debate, but again a bit more "abstract" and theoretical. I'd say the moment when this changed was 2008s US presidential campaign.

At least as one of the "first ones" from the AOL days (too young for the Eternal September, old enough to have gotten online too early) - most of "us" were young and didn't care about News. We were more interested in Mr. Burns getting shot and whatever internal drama was happening in our online fan clubs. I remember 9/11 happening, but instead of switching websites I continued to read online webcomics and my "Learn VB in 24 Hours" book.

A lot of us were just younger then and our social groups were more focused on other things. I am in an indie game Discord right now that's clearly not my demographic anymore. I don't interact, I'm just there for game updates. But, those kids are making their own memories right now. I think as adults, we just sort of ~forgot~.

Re: What happened to nerds?

#387

Post by CMay » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 2:41 PM UTC

Big companies tend to be somewhat older companies. The people who run them tend to be older. Older people have had a longer time to adjust to society, open up, get out of their shell. People who run large companies also end up adapting to social contact, which is not something we tend to define nerds by. That is all amplified by social media and youtube which help scale up interpersonal examples for people to adjust to for good or for bad.

Some subset of these big companies will be run by people who appreciate that they're having an impact on society and feel that it's important for them to be more public so people can better appreciate who they are. Jeff Bezos was a bit awkward in the 1990s, Bill Gates was way more awkward back then, oh man, it was physically uncomfortable to watch him in interviews. Mark Zuckerberg was absolutely out of touch and forcing himself into the spotlight of his company was a disaster, he rolled -1000 charisma. They had to get Elon Musk to make dice just for that to be possible.

Most of them get better over time. These are not people that generally started hugely confident in public or with lots of people, but when you run these companies you gain both confidence and money which make public appearance less painful. You could argue they might sometimes veer into overconfidence to make up for confidence slipping, which can also be seen as ego.

There are plenty of nerds out there. Statistically based on population growth and also increases in autism spectrum diagnoses, there are more than ever.

Re: What happened to nerds?

#388

Post by nathan_compton » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 2:42 PM UTC

afavour wrote: post #312

nathan_compton wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Be nice, think about hard problems for a long period of time, only speak up when you have something positive to contribute -- be labelled an underperforming academic and managed into obscurity. I'm in academy and I'm mostly quiet and seek to contribute honestly and I've been managed into obscurity but I'm also quite happy, pay the bills, and more or less enjoy the work. If you want glory you have to deal with bulls…

It's the money side that applies pressure there. It's great that you're able to make enough money but a lot of people who aspire to the quiet academic life are stuck in the lower tiers making a pittance.

There are pittances and then there are pittances. I make a bit more than a typical adjunct or whatever because I have very specialized skills, but its ok not to make a lot of money.

I mean this is a place where the founder just wrote a blog post about being a billionaire. I'll never be a billionaire, thats for sure.

But I genuinely believe that pursuing that goal is vanity, bad for people mentally and "spiritually" and bad for the world.

Re: What happened to nerds?

#389

Post by snek_case » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 2:43 PM UTC

willXare wrote: post #319

azalemeth wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Academia is the most relevant, toxic example that I can think of. Be horrible to others on a short term contract (grad students, postdocs) and break them whilst extracting maximum value -- get more papers, more grants written -- more money -- success. Be nice, think about hard problems for a long period of time, only speak up when you have something positive to contribute -- be labelled an underperforming academic an…

[flagged]

To get tenure in STEM, you need to publish 1 to 3 papers a year. If you only publish once per year, you'd be on the low end, so you always have to think about your next paper. You always have to try to work on something that would be publishable within the next 6 months to a year, but preferably within 6 months.

Re: What happened to nerds?

#390

Post by bandofthehawk » Mon, Jun 15, 2026, 2:43 PM UTC

p-e-w wrote: post #311

almost_usual wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people are naturally talented at things. It’s no different than an average athlete who works extremely hard and an elite athlete who puts in half the work but still outperforms the average.

What? Elite athletes put in unimaginably more work than average athletes.

I think what he meant was that you can take a group of people and train them for a sport. Some of those people (genetically elite athletes) will improve very quickly with minimal training, others can do massive amounts of training and never reach beyond a certain level.