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

The Art of Money Getting

kk.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–239 of 239 posts

Re: The Art of Money Getting

#231

Post by GarnetFloride »

amunozo wrote: post #208
GarnetFloride wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you an extrovert or introvert? Look at how you spend your time. Do you have to spend time with people or have to be alone sometimes? What do you do when you have nothing else to do? I know that's really hard these days with all the distractions we have. So maybe what do you watch or read about? What are your interests? But the world changes. I started out as an engineer and that got shipped to China. I pivoted to…

Due to personal and professional reasons I've spent too much time alone last years. I really noticed that I love being with people and that I cannot stand being all day in front of a computer by myself. I also read a lot about history, economy, culture and geography, but on the contrary my background is in Physics and I am finishing a PhD in NLP in which I don't feel very good.

That is useful insight. The concept of the Sunk Cost Fallacy may be useful to you.

Re: The Art of Money Getting

#232

Post by dd8601fn »

dartharva wrote: post #164
Michelangelo11 wrote: post #14

> Barnum’s first rule: pick the work you’re built for, then aim to be the best at it. Edsger Dijkstra, in one of his letters, giving advice (IIRC) to a PhD student: "Do only what only you can do." Kind of funny to see one of the greatest computer scientists and one of the greatest public entertainers giving the same advice, but I guess that speaks strongly in its favor.

This is also the kind of advice that only sounds good on paper. In reality there is no clear marker of what you can and cannot do well unless you empirically experiment with everything which would take several lifetimes. Modern gurus like Cal Newport advise the opposite, and for good reason.

I think the whole conversation sounds silly, from the start.

There are 8 billion people on this planet. It just doesn’t make sense.

Re: The Art of Money Getting

#233

Post by Paradigm2020 »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #162
Paradigm2020 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh this is literally about human integrity, not a dapp. Why the need to insert this crypto spam ?

I assumed that it was a joke. I guess I could be wrong, though.

It seemed serious but guess I should take the optimistic view, not gonna go down the rabbit hole. Thx

Re: The Art of Money Getting

#234

Post by KellyCriterion »

galangalalgol wrote: post #192
KellyCriterion wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before 2000 The salary expectations exploded when the VC/PE-bobos went into the space and started "build-and-sell-high". Sure there were Billionairs made before tech & internet, but public was not aware of most such transactions.

And that never changed salaries nearly as much in games, embedded, or outside the us. I never worked in any software position adjacent to the online economy, so I never saw any of those wacky salaries.

And to add: Over here in Europe, salaries in gaming & entertainment are amongst the lowest in "software & IT & tech"; sure there are some/few developers who make really good money, but its far off from these crazy salaries in US & co: In EU, it will be very hard to make more than 150.000 EUR before tax in a game studio, unless you are the boss/founder.

Re: The Art of Money Getting

#235

Post by iamalizard »

canpan wrote: post #140
roncesvalles wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've come to learn that "do only what only you can do" is not great advice at all. It's leagues better to be the 10,000th-best SWE at Meta than the world's best basketweaver. Often doing something super unique is an excuse for shying away from mainstream competition.

I don't know about basket weaving, but.. I once had a talk with one of (the?) world's best bonsai gardener in Edogawa, Tokyo. Trees cut by him are worth millions and he has pictures of himself with FANG leaders. This guy wakes up every morning at 5 and works until it's dark outside even though he clearly does not need to work for money, but because he loves it.

I think some people just aren't wired to love doing something over and over, especially something so monotonous. Basket weaving or bonsai gardening is much more monotonous than solving difficult crimes or difficult science problems or difficult tech problems. There are people who absolutely love solving difficult problems but get tired of it after a few years and switch to another field. For those people doing weaving or gardening would get boring very quickly. I think it may come to whether people like the idea of things or the things themselves. If I was a basket weaver, I'd quickly realize there aren't that many groundbreaking weaving ideas I'll have in my lifetime, that most baskets are very similar in how they're made. I'll say to myself "I could make these 50 amazing baskets but they'll all fall under these 5 types of baskets with these 10 skills required to make them. So why do it if I can imagine doing it and if I know I'll be able to do it?". I may even envision a mega basket that incorporates every trick in the trade, like a skyscraper compared to a hut. I'll know that I'm capable of making it. That will satisfy my love for the idea of baskets but if I don't love the thing itself, why do it at all? The idea is 90% of the mega basket. The execution could be automated in a few years, why bother doing it for 5000 hours?

Re: The Art of Money Getting

#236

Post by underlipton »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #190
esseph wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

I'm not quitting the site myself, but the kind of cynicism evinced in the comment is toxic. If your response to the very ideas of accounting, law, healthcare and journalism is to wave your hand and nonspecifically declare that they couldn't possibly be respectable, you're making things worse and creating cover for unethical people, even if you understand yourself to be doing it in a wise and savvy way.

I erased the extended response I'd written because, as I tend to, I got to the end of writing it and realized that it would be fairly disrespectful to dump a screed on someone when a concise witticism gets my sentiment across. I still have it, if anyone is curious to read it, though.

Suffice it to say, it was not a response to "the very ideas" of those fields, but to their state "In America, in 2026". GP suggests that people working in them automatically assume a sort of virtue just because they overpaid for an advanced degree, and I reject that, in light of how they've operated for most of my life.

>you're making things worse and creating cover for unethical people

This is, ironically, my own point about what GP said.

Re: The Art of Money Getting

#237

Post by vagrantJin »

roncesvalles wrote: post #93
Michelangelo11 wrote: post #14

> Barnum’s first rule: pick the work you’re built for, then aim to be the best at it. Edsger Dijkstra, in one of his letters, giving advice (IIRC) to a PhD student: "Do only what only you can do." Kind of funny to see one of the greatest computer scientists and one of the greatest public entertainers giving the same advice, but I guess that speaks strongly in its favor.

I've come to learn that "do only what only you can do" is not great advice at all. It's leagues better to be the 10,000th-best SWE at Meta than the world's best basketweaver. Often doing something super unique is an excuse for shying away from mainstream competition.

I have to strongly disagree with this one. People should strive to do hard things, solve uniquely hard problems. SWE is not hard or particularly unique.

Re: The Art of Money Getting

#239

Post by giwook »

> Avoid Debt Like the Plague

Not sure if this is still applicable today. afaik the wealthiest borrow extensively (despite not needing to) because of the myriad benefits and tax wizardry they're able to benefit from as a result.

Post reply on HN