Live data from Hacker News

Work Hard You'll Get There Eventually (hint: no you won't)

blogs.msdn.com

71–80 of 85 posts

Re: Work Hard You'll Get There Eventually (hint: no you won't)

#71

It's easier to call out bad and outdated advice (Welch's) than to offer good advice, which the OP doesn't. The problem with Welch's advice is that it's what successful people say , not what they do. You should pay attention to what unsuccessful people say and know (they're the ones who know the organization's true character) but what the successful people do . Take knowledge from the losers, but copy the actions (oft…

Is it really that much of a mystery? Here's how to succeed in tech. Sorry for the cynicism, but it's pretty obvious if you open your eyes and look around the Valley: 1. Have rich, preferably white parents who can get you into Harvard, Stanford, Yale, etc. 2. Found a company that does whatever (it doesn't really matter as long as it involves whatever's hot in technology in some way), and use your family/school connect…

The cardinal sin: there's nothing there involving R&D, or furthering the state of the art. This is why software lost it's way: it's too timid. We all use the same set of tools ("best practices"), same languages ("traction"), and target the same saturated demographic.

The consequence: every software job requires 5 years experience in $TRENDY_FRAMEWORK rather than 10 years of generalist experience. But, hey, we'll quiz you on hash table implementation to pretend we're on the cutting edge!

We're making our day-to-day jobs worse. Stop it.

Re: Work Hard You'll Get There Eventually (hint: no you won't)

#72

The new system is not 'better' than the old system, and is probably significantly worse. While it's true that Welch's advice is no longer valid, it's because the legal, financial, and monetary environment has changed so much since the heydays of GE. My grandfather retired a millionaire after working as a basic GE accountant for his entire postwar life. So as far as he was concerned, GE treated him well, and it treate…

> because the US no longer rewards loyalty in either the public or private spheres. It is in fact punished, as this writer notes

Loyalty is seen as weakness: "this person can't hack it on their own!" Everything is viewed through the lens of power, which makes for a highly toxic environment.

> Propagandizing for yourself to eke out a good living and career hopping all over the country is a pain in the ass. Both activities are tangential to producing profitable work over a long period of time.

Thank you.

In the absence of believing in institutions (employers), we now just believe in ourselves. To the point where we're actively encouraged to "do things and blog about them." Yes, we need to call attention to the things we've done because...well, everyone else is yelling about what they've done.

I understand the need to talk about what you've done, but it's beyond ridiculous how much self-promotion goes on. Sometimes I feel Twitter and HN is over 50% self-promotional. It's gross.

Re: Work Hard You'll Get There Eventually (hint: no you won't)

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, your idea of "terrible" luck basically means "having to switch jobs several times and making less than $250,000 as a 30 year old". I mean, I get it: There are plenty of people who are less deserving than you that have been wildly, disproportionately successful. I can understand why you're envious. But don't kid yourself, most people would kill to have the supposedly miserable failure of a career that you'…

your idea of "terrible" luck basically means "having to switch jobs several times and making less than $250,000 as a 30 year old". Nah, that's not what it's about at all. It's definitely not about the salary. If you're a novelist and you make even a quarter of that number at mid-career, you're a huge success. It's about autonomy, importance, reputation, etc. Personal financial stress (which I have suffered, although…

I understand you, I had some experiences when I had to continuously facepalm when dealing with politics, ideas that had a strong push due to nepotism and cronyism, threatening somebody's power by presenting and executing superior non-trivial ideas in a very short time that became the base of the whole operations etc. In the end I decided I don't want to waste my life working for people propagating this way of working and had to completely overhaul my strategy.

I can give you a few advices (with your intelligence you are aware of them anyway though might not have been acting on them so far): 1) start your own business(es) that can be automated to a large extent. You'd spend 1 hour a day running it, making adjustments and in time it would grow to sustain you 100%. There are still a plenty of areas you can focus at, you might have avoided them because they are "easy", or "anyone could do that", "uninteresting" etc. Yet they give you a recurring income that would give you freedom to pursue whatever you want to do. 2) accept (and give) only partnerships when working with someone, on fair terms 3) do a reasonable long-term investing, 80% "stable", 20% risky or whatever reasonable ratio suits you 4) when forced to work on something due to economical circumstances, sudden change of directions due to acquisition etc. with which you can't agree, stop using your emotions there and do the average expected work, while preserving energy and attention to your future opportunities 5) retain your integrity. Compromising yourself weakens you immensely 6) make sure you are on top of your game all the time - get excellent at chosen difficult MOOCs, do some new thing with an utmost focus (arts?), anything where you can get a real feedback about your capabilities and progress

You should understand you hold enormous power even as an individual. Perhaps because of your past generosity or good will you didn't use it or were led to believe that you can't do a lot of things - I think your subconsciousness is rebelling to such thoughts, hence the strong reactions you have. You can literally bring whole companies to the ground if you wish to, or create something unique that empowers others in a good way. Most people become mediocre, uninspiring, "happiness" pursuers, take some kind of blue pill, yet still thinking they have the best ideas, are brilliant, master minds etc. They will never understand what is going on once you start utilizing your mind to improve some small part of life for everyone.

Re: Work Hard You'll Get There Eventually (hint: no you won't)

#74
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain to me how the federal government being a creditor to European nations after World War II ensured happy times for employee/employer relations? If creditor/debtor status of the federal government makes such a difference, why didn't the massive US federal debt (around 110% of GDP) negate that creditor status? This argument has never made sense to me since a) most European countries had almost fully recov…

After WWII, the US was pretty much the only functioning manufacturing nation for a decade. In addition, new markets opened up to US manufacturing due to the dropping of trade barriers with, and competition from, the markets of the British and French Empires as well as Japan. This advantage also lead to faster technological development in the US compared to other markets for a while. These advantages slowly eroded as…

While that might have helped the domestic manufacturing market, international trade was not a substantial part of the US economy for a long time - in 1950-1960, imports and exports were 4-5% of GDP (with exports usually just barely north of imports.) They're triple that today. The pre-World War II import/export statistics aren't much different from the post-World War II import/export statistics, but the economy was much different. I don't see how any argument about international trade can apply, based on the data.

After all, it's not just competitors that are gone, it's customers too.

Re: Work Hard You'll Get There Eventually (hint: no you won't)

#75
post #13

I feel weird reading a piece on career advice by somebody who works at Microsoft.

Total ad hominem. MS has some great talent, and MS Research does some awesome things.

Good point. I should stop making throwaway remarks on HN.

Re: Work Hard You'll Get There Eventually (hint: no you won't)

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow you've decided that, despite labeling yourself unsuccessful, people should pay attention to what you say. The only support I see you making for this is citing your IQ, which is meaningless. You obviously believe you're telling people things that work, and the attempt to help is something I'm sure people appreciate. But based on what you're saying here, either you don't follow that advice, you don't understand…

I've had a lot of terrible luck. Some of it was no one's fault, most of it was not my fault. I'll probably be a lot more successful now that I have my shit together. But when things go bad for you, you learn what people really are in a way that the ones with charmed lives never really do. I suppose I'm lucky insofar as I had my bad luck in my 20s, when it was easier to recover than in one's 50s. Much knowledge can on…

I've also learned a lot of things the hard way. You learn more from failure than from success.

After having worked awhile, I'm pretty sure I'm able to tell the difference between people who really know what they're doing and people who are faking it. I've never been in a position to make hiring decisions, so I haven't had a chance to use that skill.

Re: Work Hard You'll Get There Eventually (hint: no you won't)

#77

Cooperate-Cooperate, Betray-Cooperate, or Betray-Betray. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_game In the golden era we imagine the corporate worker relations was a cooperate cooperate game, producing hard work, good will, and strong meaningful community for everyone. Then corporations realized they needed workers to cooperate while reserving the right to betray them (layoffs, terminations etc) because as the mar…

What you describe is more an iterated prisoner's dilemma rather than a static game. What's interesting is that it has been demonstrated in controlled circumstances that the most successful strategy in an iterated prisoner's dilemma game is tit-for-tat [1], a strategy that any participating party can choose to adopt at any time.

The fact is, corporate-labor relations is not a monolith. Although some (or even most) participants in the labor market may be engaged in betray-betray behavior today, that doesn't mean that such relationships are universal or will come to dominate the labor market over time. Given that tit-for-tat is theoretically the most successful strategy, companies that adopt generous performance-based policies with their employees should enjoy long-term competitive advantage against any rivals who have chosen less-friendly employee policies. If this model is predictive, the advantages of a "betray only" strategy for corporations will be relatively short-lived, because the inevitable betray-betray relationships will make such companies less competitive than entities that adopt a "tit-for-tat" strategy.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

Re: Work Hard You'll Get There Eventually (hint: no you won't)

#78
post #65
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everything is the prisoner's dilemma. There's no reason -- at least not in your post -- that self-motivated individualism can't be efficient; such ideas were advocated by e.g. Hayek and Friedman (to say nothing of real macroeconomics). If my time is better spent somewhere else because they offer me more money, maybe that's because the work I do there will produce more value for the world overall. In other words y…

You assume that your wage is proportional to the value you deliver to the world. Bad. Not correct. Try again. There is a positive correlation on the population level, but on the individual level the relationship is tenuous at best.

It's not relevant to my argument. The point was that in some cases, individualism can be efficient. A didactic example is meant to be recognized as such and not attacked for technicalities in its formulation; rigor was not here the goal. Note, for example, the use of "maybe". But congratulations for irrelevant nitpicking, I guess.

Re: Work Hard You'll Get There Eventually (hint: no you won't)

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, your idea of "terrible" luck basically means "having to switch jobs several times and making less than $250,000 as a 30 year old". I mean, I get it: There are plenty of people who are less deserving than you that have been wildly, disproportionately successful. I can understand why you're envious. But don't kid yourself, most people would kill to have the supposedly miserable failure of a career that you'…

your idea of "terrible" luck basically means "having to switch jobs several times and making less than $250,000 as a 30 year old". Nah, that's not what it's about at all. It's definitely not about the salary. If you're a novelist and you make even a quarter of that number at mid-career, you're a huge success. It's about autonomy, importance, reputation, etc. Personal financial stress (which I have suffered, although…

It's about autonomy, importance, reputation, etc. [..] the difference between comfortable and rich means zilch. What does matter is control over one's destiny, rather than being blown about by others' political games, and having the resources to implement one's own ideas rather than being a tool in someone else's box.

Why is that your definition of success?

"Having the resources to implement my own ideas" is daft; I very likely don't have any (new) ideas worth implementing. How many people have lived since the early days of the industrial revolution? Call it 20 billion[1]. How many genuinely useful not too niche machines have been invented and programs written, not counting the same program reinvented over and over and over. Tens of thousands? A million? There just aren't enough new things for everyone to invent.

So instead of new ideas, maybe I/we could reimplement existing ideas - do something that someone else has done, in our own way. But how is that significantly different from "being a tool in someone else's box"?

Elon Musk makes cars, he's got control over his own destiny! He's following his dream! He's not a tool in someone else's box, he's not pushed around by others political games! That's success!

Wait, he's not pushed around by others' political games? Tesla cars have to meet all kinds of regulations. Tesla the company does too, for accounting, finance, taxes, advertising, customer interaction, etc.

The cars have to have pedals and a steering wheel or no customer would be able to drive them. They have to fit on a road, and behave in common car-like ways or no customer would have use for them. They have to look like a car or no customer would recognise what they are or wouldn't want to be seen with one. They have to be petrol, diesel or battery powered because there isn't anything else they could be that fits all the lots-of-requirements.

And yet you say "It's not money that makes Elon Musk a success, it's because he has the freeodm to shape the doors his way!".

But he doesn't have the freedom to shape them his way, he has the freedom to shape them like car doors and nothing else.

A false sense of freedom is a strange definition of success.

You could find as much limited freedom while working for someone else.

[1] http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleH...

Re: Work Hard You'll Get There Eventually (hint: no you won't)

#80

The new system is not 'better' than the old system, and is probably significantly worse. While it's true that Welch's advice is no longer valid, it's because the legal, financial, and monetary environment has changed so much since the heydays of GE. My grandfather retired a millionaire after working as a basic GE accountant for his entire postwar life. So as far as he was concerned, GE treated him well, and it treate…

> because the US no longer rewards loyalty in either the public or private spheres The comfort of 1950s US was an accident of the WW2 windfall resulting from our happy position as the creditor for most of Europe. Pointing to that accident as a model for future progress is childish.

And yet the US has had far more wealth the next decades, per capita and in aggregate (adjusted for inflation) that it ever had back then, right?

So it's not like the new ruthless environment is a result of budgetary restrictions.

Post reply on HN