Hacker News Reader

Comment by syndacks | Hacker News Reader

When I rode my bicycle across the USA from LA to NYC I met a dude named Ryan through WarmShowers. Over pizza and beers at a local joint in Tempe, AZ, Ryan told me about this blog called _Semi-Rad_ - "you don't need to be a rockstar in something, you just need to be semi-rad. Semi-rad people have the most fun, they achieve the most, they experience the spice of life. They're not so caught up in perfection, but they still achieve a degree of greatness."

I approve this message, Darius Foroux, and I encourage others to consider the trade-offs of "perfection" vs. "semi-rad".

View on HN

In several fields, people at the top 1% of skill level earn many times those at top 10% and the mediocre ones may barely get by. This phenomenon is spreading because better technologies enable top performers to serve more people.

(See: the Superstar effect for the most extreme examples. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Superstar_Effect)

How would the average workers or even ‘semi-rads’ in generally less lucrative fields like arts or cooking save enough for their retirements if they settle for that skill level?

How sustainable is that model going to be? It's mathematically impossible for everyone to be in the top 1%.

Not if we create 10 billion different specialties.

I think what makes it a 1% is the disparity of demand.

Well, consider being a chef. Does it make sense to shoot to be the next cooking superstar Rene Redzepi or Ferran Adria and achieve success on culinary skills alone? Or instead be a competent cook who also knows how to balance a checkbook, hire & manage staff, design an appealing menu, negotiate with suppliers, do marketing and thus be able to survive and make money in the cut-throat restaurant biz where something like 9 out of 10 new entrants fail within a year?

(Mind you, I'm pretty sure Redzepi and Adria also know how to balance a checkbook...)

Live in Europe

This assumes that the pension system there will be able to sustain itself in a few decades hence despite low birth rates and limited immigration.

Also, most people in developing countries, i.e. most people in the world, do not have that option.

> This assumes that the pension system there will be able to sustain itself in a few decades hence despite low birth rates and limited immigration.

Indeed, the system is not perfect and the general outlook of it is pretty bad. But you still have a higher chance of getting a pension at 65 in Europe than in the US while being mediocre. Also don't forget automation, which I'd assume will trickle down to benefit the lower and middle European Class faster than it'll happen in the US. Again, assumptions. The future is unsure for sure.

>Also, most people in developing countries, i.e. most people in the world, do not have that option.

Indeed. But most people on HN are usually from North America or WE, so you know... saying that is a bit disingenuous. You could say "most people are _dirt_ (emphasis on dirt) poor and cannot lift themselves out of poverty". Yes, most people in the world are like that, but we all know that for example this article is not directed at those sorts of people, but rather at "Westeners", who probably won't go hungry in their lives ever unless a major catastrophe happens.

There is a huge number of people in the world outside of the West who are between "dirt-poor" and having European-style pension. They do read such self-help articles.

Yes. Many people cites Europe/France as a good example of retirement/healthcare and forget that the pension system is a Scam.

They are basically paying current retirees with what the current employees are paying. A state-lead Ponzi Scheme.

The system will eventually implode.

As long as you have many young people and few old, that's a good system. Basically "taking care of your parents" but through the state in a collective manner.

Few developed countries--the US and Australia are the only exceptions I can think of--have that population structure.

So which countries would you 'cite as a good example of retirement/healthcare'?

France, Germany, Spain, etc...

Are they perfect? No, though.

Power law at work.

Very valid question at the end. No one can afford settling at moderate skill levels these days

I believe these two things are orthogonal. Take Steve Jobs for example, generalist but a perfectionist, too

Great is the enemy of good-enough. Just getting to good enough (proficient) is an accomplishment. The world's most interesting person has many interesting proficiencies. :)

Seems like a justification for mediocrity.

Yeah, you'll enjoy life more if you're not working 100 hours a week like Elon Musk. But I think you'll be in general better off and happier if you push yourself.

I've always worked very hard at my career and it has paid off. I get to do lots of fun things as a result. It was hard in the moment to make the sacrifices, but that's water under the bridge now. Present and future me are very happy past me spent so much effort getting better.

Is Elon Musk not "semi-rad"? He's seems to have a wide breadth of knowledge in multiple fields (engineering, business). He's not the best at anything other than being himself, which I think is the point.

Elon Musk is not the best in anything? Not even building world changing businesses?

It isn't a binary choice between "rockstar" and "mediocrity". There's a huge area between those two: "semi-rad".

That's the point. Learn to recognize when you've achieved a level of skill where you're qualified more than most, and don't have to double your effort and time to get to the pinnacle. The opportunity cost may not be worth it if you can otherwise spend it pursuing other interests.

Perhaps I just don't understand this semi rad thing. And yeah that makes a certain amount of sense. But it also seems dangerous in that it can easily be used as a justification for underachieving.

I suppose. But at the risk of getting a little meta here: Wouldn't that justification only be relied upon by underachievers in the first place? Anyone looking for a reason to not do more than they are is already in that category I think.

I take it as a "whoa, slow down" message to overachievers that are sacrificing a well-rounded life on the alter of excellence. Maybe they can do more by widening their focus a bit.

Are you suggesting Elon Musk is happier than most? He certainly doesn’t seem happy to me.

No, I suggested that working 100 hours a week like Elon Musk will not likely lead to happiness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com