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

Wozniak: “Actually, the movie was largely a lie about me”

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 314 posts

Re: Wozniak: “Actually, the movie was largely a lie about me”

#291

Post by markdennehy »

nicholas73 wrote: post #244
jaredsohn wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are virtual stock markets that you can partake in to see how good you are (although this likely requires investing time which won't directly get paid back if you do well at it.) I wonder if people who do especially well in them can use virtual stock market success as a stepping stone to managing other peoples' money (and getting a cut).

It's well agreed upon that paper trading is nothing like trading with money on the line. It's ALL about psychology.

> It's well agreed upon that paper trading is nothing like trading with money on the line. It's ALL about psychology.

It's also pretty well agreed on (mainly from scientific studies into the actual results of investors) that this is not only bullcrap, but believing it's true was a major contributing factor in the enormous economic disaster we're all still living through right now. I'd like to say how galling it is to see someone hasn't learnt the basic hubris-based lesson we paid so much for -- except that I really can't express that in words adequately.

Re: Wozniak: “Actually, the movie was largely a lie about me”

#292

Post by markdennehy »

WalterBright wrote: post #96
JAFTEM wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is what I said and my point stands: how many people can actually give the correct answer to who created the first light bulb? Edison was attributed all of the credit when he built off the work of others, which isn't to say that's a bad thing but that this is usually how breakthroughs usually come about.

I have mixed feelings about the "correct" answer. Davy showed that wires glowed when enough current was passed through them. Does that count? Swan improved on that with his lightbulb lasting longer, but a few minutes life is incomplete. Edison finished the invention. Me, I tend to give the credit for the invention to Edison, while acknowledging that he stood on the shoulders of others. It's how credit is done for mos…

You might give more credit to the hundred or so people (all the equivalent of our PhD graduates today) who were doing the actual work for him.

Edison's contribution was to pay them enough so they could eat and live, and point them at a project.

And Edison's an even more interesting example to bring up in a Jobs discussion because of the whole history between himself and Tesla (and if nothing else tells you about the man's character, the elephant-electrocuting nonsense during the current wars would tell you all you needed to know).

Re: Wozniak: “Actually, the movie was largely a lie about me”

#293

Post by markdennehy »

jaredsohn wrote: post #290
markdennehy wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. You do get, don't you, that there's no real difference between personal wealths of $100 million and $1000 million? And that there shouldn't be? Why do so few people get that there's a ceiling here? You earn enough money so that you can live off the interest of what's in your bank account, and congratulations, your financial worth is now $MAX. Seriously. $MAX is a real thing in the real world. It's where you can…

There is a big difference. A person with a wealth of $100 million shouldn't be called a billionaire which is why I wrote that comment. :) I don't get why you wrote what you did as a response to mine; I just made a factual correction. (I even stated that the point still stands.) Edit: This was not an argument over the meaning of the word 'billionaire'; the post I replied to likely assumed that Wozniak was a billionair…

Because if you want to argue over the meaning of the word billionaire, you start with why we shouldn't have changed the meaning of the word billion :)

When you're talking about personal wealth, there's a real danger of money going from a tool to do stuff; to being a way to keep score. And that latter road leads to the worst kind of arsehole-ry (damn, that needs a better word).

Re: Wozniak: “Actually, the movie was largely a lie about me”

#294

Post by hexagonc »

pjbrunet wrote: post #269
wpietri wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't totally disagree, but I think this is excessively sunny. As somebody who was an early NeRD (NeXT Registered Developer) and helped start one of the NeXT User Groups, I don't think I would call NeXT a successful company. It created some great technology for its day, but it was an ongoing commercial failure. Nobody would buy the hardware, so they killed that early. By the end they were killing off the OS and goi…

I agree about the iPod, before that Apple was a sad story. They just rebranded the Diamond PMP for the Napster crowd, which was pretty smart. Nobody knew what an MP3 player was till Napster came along: Diamond Rio MP3 player - 1998 Napster - 1999 iPod - 2001 After that, everything they made was a minimal white box with rounded corners and the rest is history. LOL.

If I recall correctly, Apple didn't really take off until they released a Windows compatible iPod. That singular decision to leap out of the Apple-only ecosystem is what set the stage for the iPhone and the iPad and all other success thereafter. I wonder what world we would be in if Apple had continued to insist on people switching to OSX hardware before enjoying the benefits of the iPod. I suspect that most of the huge market for Windows users would have turned to the Zune, which the few people who actually own them seemed to like. Image a world where the Zune had won the music player wars.

Re: Wozniak: “Actually, the movie was largely a lie about me”

#295

Post by SimHacker »

atmosx wrote: post #178
corin_ wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth keeping in mind that the nicest people will still have a few people who hate them, and the worst people will still have a few people who love them - whether they're top CEOs or just anyone in life. That said your friend's opinion may well be in the majority, I've no idea.

Yes, but when someone is a nice guy - like Wozniak - there are always around him people who will let us know how nice he was ... as with Woz. No one ever pictured Wozniak as an egomaniac workaholic, although his skill-set was (apparently) extremely above the average programmer at the time and an ego-centric behavior would (probably) be acceptable by him also.. Since he was the one who crated Apple 1 and ][ after all…

Yes, Woz was and still is truly humble, kind and accessible, to the core.

When I was a kid, he autographed my Apple ][ reference manual (the new spiral bound one that replaced the old Red Book, with the fold-out schematics and 6502 assembly monitor rom listings in the back), "Have fun with your Apple ][. -Woz".

A short, to the point, motivational, practical call to action. I sure did!

Re: Wozniak: “Actually, the movie was largely a lie about me”

#296

Post by sequoia »

primitivesuave wrote: post #120
leelin wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Steve Wozniak's interview with Emily Chang, he says "I loved Pirates of Silicon Valley... but it wasn't more truthful." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6ciNXc_4OQ (at approximately 12:10)

My favorite interview of Steve Wozniak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K1uj9VmCzo

mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4R3hODnTGo

Re: Wozniak: “Actually, the movie was largely a lie about me”

#297

Post by macspoofing »

markdennehy wrote: post #291
nicholas73 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's well agreed upon that paper trading is nothing like trading with money on the line. It's ALL about psychology.

> It's well agreed upon that paper trading is nothing like trading with money on the line. It's ALL about psychology. It's also pretty well agreed on (mainly from scientific studies into the actual results of investors) that this is not only bullcrap, but believing it's true was a major contributing factor in the enormous economic disaster we're all still living through right now. I'd like to say how galling it is to…

>It's also pretty well agreed on (mainly from scientific studies into the actual results of investors) that this is not only bullcrap

Are you sure you actually understand what nicholas actually argued? All nicholas (as well as me) wrote is that your decision making changes completely when you have something on the line. And of course it would! So what are you talking about?

Re: Wozniak: “Actually, the movie was largely a lie about me”

#298

Post by BugBrother »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #283
soperj wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blackberry isn't getting a big influx of cash & business software from a competitor.

And with good reason. Bill Gates didn't do that as some sort of goodwill gesture, he did it because he felt it was right for MS.

Huh?

Wasn't the money put into Apple part of a deal after Microsoft was found with source code for Quicktime getting into their own video software?

The "Microsoft believes in Apple" from that might be more Job's reality distortion field. :-)

Re: Wozniak: “Actually, the movie was largely a lie about me”

#299

Post by kenrikm »

ekianjo wrote: post #264
impeachgod wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately for us, Apple acquiring NeXT instead of Be means that we get to program iOS and OS X in Objective-C instead of C++.

There's a lot of things to say against Objective-C, as far as I know.

And there's a lot to say against C++ as well, AFAIK.

Re: Wozniak: “Actually, the movie was largely a lie about me”

#300

Post by nicholas73 »

markdennehy wrote: post #291
nicholas73 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's well agreed upon that paper trading is nothing like trading with money on the line. It's ALL about psychology.

> It's well agreed upon that paper trading is nothing like trading with money on the line. It's ALL about psychology. It's also pretty well agreed on (mainly from scientific studies into the actual results of investors) that this is not only bullcrap, but believing it's true was a major contributing factor in the enormous economic disaster we're all still living through right now. I'd like to say how galling it is to…

When I say money on the line, it really means your own money on the line. The disaster you refer to is when people trade other people's money for a share of profits but no liability.
Post reply on HN