121–130 of 142 posts
"But it dawns on me that luck is just the product of all these other qualities" This, to me, highlights the flaw in the whole article. They nearly died. They were saved by a chance encounter with a friendly boat. This encounter was SO OBVIOUSLY not a product of their own motivation, boldness or any of the rest of that guff. This is the worst form of survivor bias.
It’s easy to take this observation in literal terms. Most of the comments point to the danger of “risking everything (financially)” and of course there’s a potential stupidity in that. Reframed as psychologically risking everything is perhaps a more resonant alternative view. What this means is the notion that “you’re all in”, all of you. That your entire being is at risk. Sports perhaps the easiest illustration, whe…
A all-in attempt to reframe life based on self-awareness and what’s not right/what’s really wanted can be a rewarding experience when it’s properly hedged. I think doing it consistently in small and large ways is a good way to continually develop as a person as middle and old age set in. The world is a big place and I think the point gets missed if the track you’re born into is the track you die in. Attempting these track changes and ideally pulling them off is a great way to understand the power of personal agency and where self-identity comes from.
Hedging the risks of this generally means clear plans for financial stability during the change, and generally accepting and planning for the consequences of the change. It’s hard to when you can’t pay rent.
I think people who wade into attempting this likely fail due to not being able to cover their hedges and an bit of bad luck. Or, they are just born into the wrong zip code and the real-life risks of a change are too much to overcome or they have very narrow paths with tough trade offs (joining the military or w/e).
So, all that said, putting your life orientation and self-identity at risk once in a while and expanding the territory is a good thing I think.
I really like that the author helped them and it sounded odd to me to read "The prevailing wisdom for this seafaring situation is “Don’t Stop.” ", before I realised that in different countries there are different threats. Sailing mainly in the Baltics, there is the opposing rule of having the duty to help people in distress at sea. I'm not sure I fully understand the "learning" part, isn't this a bit of survivor bias…
> there is the opposing rule of having the duty to help people in distress at sea. That's all I've ever heard as well. Perhaps the amount of pirates/refugees/drug-runners in those waters around Belize has turned that on its head?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but really risking everything is almost impossible to do. Like if I took my life savings and put them on red, I'm still going to be fine because I'll outrace that loss in no time. To really risk everything I have to burn bridges, damage my brain, and lose all my money. In the end, you always have yourself. Except when you die. And then it doesn't matter. Interestingly, though, I've always stopped for people on…
When I think about taking alternative cost into account you loose more than "just money", you loose all the opportunities that could show up after a week or month later, or until you build savings back. You always have yourself but consider also how much impact in psyche it might have, will you really have "yourself" after blowing all the savings? It could trigger regret (especially if some opportunity shows up after…
I think the opportunity cost thing is a meaningful thing, but I doubt it'll really hurt since I have significant amounts of money I can draw on through my network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is valid when the expected returns are known Sounds like a great way to lose money.
I'm sure this is referring to the expected value in something like say, a dice throw. If the chances of winning when picking a certain number are 1/6 and the payoff is 6x the investment then the expected returns after a large mount of attempts are known and would be zero. I'm sure this is widely applicable in gambling.
Poker is a great game to learn to understand EV/variance.
I had to do this when young... I was homeless, rough sleeping. Honestly... it's a terrible piece of advice. Those risking everything have no other choice. If you're reading this person's blog post, if you're on HN... you probably have a choice, and you probably aren't "risking everything". I cannot imagine anyone on here actually choosing to potentially have nothing at all, no network, no funds, no assets, no nothing…
>> Poor kids aren't visiting the carnival. They're the ones working it. Speaking for myself, I'm kinda priviledged in working in the carnival, it's a good and steady income and I'm accumulating wealth, meaning I'm in a more economically privileged position than my parents and their parents were (housing crisis / cost of living aside, of course, sigh). That can, down the line, if I feel like it, be used as a springboa…
People have been screaming about a housing crisis for many years now, yet the percentage of owner occupied households is higher than it was compared to all of 1970-1990.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess one lesson is that for a lot people what seems like "risking everything" isn't really risking everything at all, you will in fact probably still be fine (and not homeless rough sleeping) even if you "lose". This isn't the way the advice was framed, and I think you are right that it should be -- but the reframed advice can still be good -- I don't know about for startups, I think most startups are BS, and the…
> Those who actually risk everything, like, their lives (say, refugees in boats) do so because the alternative is existentially intolerable. The comparison to entrepeneurs is just... not actually ok. This is a great summary of the problems with this analogy, thank you. It's always annoyed me when people excuse the bad behavior of landlords and bosses exploiting low-income people with "well, they took a huge financial…
But yeah, I agree with you. They are risking the challenges of having as hard a life as... their tenants or workers already have! At worst! (Then the risks of a refugee on a boat are another category yet again).
I had to do this when young... I was homeless, rough sleeping. Honestly... it's a terrible piece of advice. Those risking everything have no other choice. If you're reading this person's blog post, if you're on HN... you probably have a choice, and you probably aren't "risking everything". I cannot imagine anyone on here actually choosing to potentially have nothing at all, no network, no funds, no assets, no nothing…
Whenever that comment comes up I feel the urge to just post the wiki entry for the Kelly criterion. If you don't have as many resources as your competitors in the market, reduce your bet size!!! Yes, that may mean you cannot challenge Mark Zuckerberg for yacht size just yet, but it will also mean that you can try again if you fail. Match your ambition to your means. Super risky plans with no room for errors make for…
"Suck it up" as the ultimate in life advice to those born less lucky lacks a certain something to the more empathetic folks out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever that comment comes up I feel the urge to just post the wiki entry for the Kelly criterion. If you don't have as many resources as your competitors in the market, reduce your bet size!!! Yes, that may mean you cannot challenge Mark Zuckerberg for yacht size just yet, but it will also mean that you can try again if you fail. Match your ambition to your means. Super risky plans with no room for errors make for…
> Match your ambition to your means. "Suck it up" as the ultimate in life advice to those born less lucky lacks a certain something to the more empathetic folks out there.
I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel the urge to just post the wiki entry for the Kelly criterion. Apparently not that strong of an urge ;-). For those (like me) who didn't know it yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
> It is valid when the expected returns are known Sounds like a great way to lose money.