A Caltech Nobel laureate celebrates his 100th birthday, then gets back to work
latimes.com
latimes.com
Congrats!
> the day after tomorrow, I am pitching my 3rd startup to investors.
I'm still pretty active (58) but there is no way I'm going to do another run, I'm happy tinkering with stuff, spending time with kids and working on average 3 to 4 months per year. I always saw money as a means to an end, just another tool in the toolbox. I don't need more of it so that part of the drive is gone and I'd much rather spend a day playing piano or fixing something than that I'd want to be worried about metrics, investors, customer acquisition, payroll and the bi-annual whack over the head from the fourth dimension that throws all your carefully laid plans into disarray.
But I do very much wish for you to succeed at whatever endeavor you've got lined up and I'm curious to hear about it. Much, much good luck with your plans.
The thing I want to do, it has to do with a new technology that would revolutionize LEOS technology, at least, that's what I think. And, I have some models that support that. Who cares? Millions of people who can't afford a decent internet connection, or one at all. If I say more, I could spoil it.
But what if we could do both. Turn a small reasonable profit and provide connectivity, well, everywhere. And decently. That's my dream. It's OK to laugh. I do too. But heck. What else am I supposed to do. Why not take a shot with a kooky idea. So here I go, fingers crossed and all that.
In very general terms I see three "types" as most common, the first type are what I think of as "score keepers" who equate bank balances with their "score" in life and a bigger score than their peers mean they "win" life. This is not a point of view that I really understand, but I generally think that is because in my younger years I lived in Las Vegas and knew other kids whose parents were professional gamblers. Their life was really random in terms of how much money was available that year/month/week/day. Money came and went based most on luck, and less on skill. As a result these folks understood money wasn't the definition of how "good" they were, just how lucky. That is how I translated equity earnings from stock options / grants. If you happened to get lucky then you got some wealth, if not well it didn't change the quality of your work or your abilities.
I see this a lot in the second type of person which is they are happy to not have to worry about money, but they don't "need" to generate any more. So they follow their passions which can be very different. One friend of mine became a patent attorney because they really liked the law and how that system worked.
The third type is the person that "fails" at retirement (I put it in quotes because I don't think of it as failing, just a different path) and they miss the technical/intellectual challenge and the camaraderie of being in a group working on tough problems. If you get to be senior enough you come to realize that you can get more done as a group of blended skills than you can as individuals. Recreating that in a non-company way is hard.[2] As a result people often "go back to work". My favorite example of this is Guido Van-Rossum, who "retired", got bored, and then went to work for Microsoft.
Tenured professorships are excellent for this third type as well. There isn't an industrial equivalent (there used to be, tech companies would have the title of "Fellow" but the grind of MBAs on margin over innovation has pretty much killed those in most places).
[1] Not a flex, I just happened to be part of a number of companies that were generous with stock options and grew into larger companies. These are not founders, they are regular employees whose stock options ended up being worth enough that they could diversify them into something they could live off of.
[2] I proposed a member-benefit type company arrangement that would address this need but have so far not pushed the idea into existence.
Because this was originally conceived for people who "could retire" but chose not to, employee pay would be $1/month plus medical coverage for the member and a spouse that is all paid for[1], office space, "lab" space if the space in the office is insufficient, and shared high-expense infrastructure.
Revenue sharing based on points and other work products (such as consulting and training classes).
There is also an "investor" option where for every $1M you put in you get $3M back. The trick though is that in the early stages it is unclear how quickly you would get your $3M. Later when rates of return are better understood that ratio could be reduced.
[1] Given the tax laws, there is also a requirement to include money to cover this "income" (US considers anything you give an employee income) so there is also a cash amount to cover those taxes. From the members perspective, they get $12/year "take home" pay, and if they did nothing else could file a tax return with $0 tax required. (caveat existing government tax shenanigans)
This is hilarious :) It is so close. I called them 'stakes' but otherwise it is pretty much the exact same thing. I wonder how many other implementations of this idea there are out there.
The company that is running using this idea is 'Infocaster', a project company in Arnhem, NL. One of the founders put his own spin on it with a whole pile of automated administration but he's - as far as I know - yet to farm it out beyond that one company. He also wrote a book about it.
Everyone I've talked to about it (and that has been quite a few people) have all nodded their heads and said "Wow, that is a really good idea, let me know when you kick it off!" But at the same time there is a chicken/egg problem of initial runway to initial payout. I've looked at a couple of lean ways to kick this off but so far none have come to fruition.
There is a potential legal issue that I have yet to find a good solution to: whether you call them points or stakes doesn't really matter, but what does matter is that they take on some properties of stock and that means that in the eyes of the regulators they may end up being stock. And I haven't found a convincing way to argue myself out of that. This was pointed out to me by a notary public here in NL that otherwise thought that the idea had merit but had serious doubts about whether that part of it would fly, especially if it was employed at scale because essentially you'd be creating a new kind of legal entity out of thin air, a company that behaves in all but one sense like a traditional one but then there are 'shares' and 'points' and somehow the shares then end up calling the shots.
This flies in the face of what the whole thing should stand for and by working hard to say 'stakes' (or points) rather than 'shares' you end up in an undefensible position. I even caught myself once or twice thinking 'shares' rather than 'stakes' so he was making a very good point.
Have you thought about that aspect of it?
Service points were for vendors, where a vendor contracts for say $100K of services and will be paid $200K for those services (so double their rate) but based on the payout of points vs monthly billed. Interestingly the lawyer I talked with thought this would be popular with law firms. The way that would work is that the vendor would invoice against the point up to the max value of the point. And annually they would receive a payout value of one point (what ever that happened to be) up to 2x what had been billed against the point so far.
There are no other ways to sell stock in an unlisted company. And yes, law firms would be a good candidate. As would almost any project based business. I wonder how the Mondragon company manages to work their way around such restrictions.
The 'record keeping' argument was shot down based on several (good) arguments, the basis of which is that if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck that it is probably a duck. The main points of interest: profit division, endurance beyond the work done for a particular job, the ability to trade them with others (possibly outsiders) and the fact that for taxation purposes they would likely be seen as shares. Having 'investor points' is a neat variation, but would probably be seen as a different class of shares.
Finally, there is a big problem in case the 'real' shareholders suddenly declare the points system invalid (because they have a big incentive to do so, for instance to be able to sell their 'actual' shares at a much higher valuation) to capture the profits themselves. This would likely result in a lawsuit where the points holders would take the position that their 'points' are shares and that suit would probably be lost based on the expected behavior.
So I can see many reasons why 'points' === 'shares' and only a few limited and ultimately broken ways in which they are not. The question then becomes 'is it possible to create a low-fee way to trade shares without going public?', and to me that one is still open. If the answer is 'no' then I think the idea is DOA, if the answer is 'yes' then it becomes a lot more interesting.
Bonds are traded on Euronext here (one of several major exchanges here), a retail investor would have to go through a bank or a broker and can't buy them directly.
Funny, I did this too (the Modular Company is actually named for the idea). Some people are actually running their company along a loose version of it and are moderately successful, it's not exactly the Mondragon Corporation but they're still alive and ticking over well after 16 years in business.
Why did you assume I assumed that instead of asking: "Do you believe the poster above you is in it for the money?"?
And given this comment of yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36589357 I find it curious that you would project that onto others.
I see you went into my comment history. The one comment you mention, I have to admit, is not written well. My point was simply that you cannot turn your hobby or passion into your main activity if that activity does not earn you enough money to make a living.
The reason why I said that I'm not motivated to do another start up and I clearly indicated that for me making a living always was only a partial drive, the other one being that I like interesting tech, is that my health is failing me in many different ways and I don't have the energy for that level of engagement any more. So I consider myself very lucky that I don't have to do any of this. Though, if something really interesting rolls around (a few months ago that nearly happened) I would be sorely tempted but would probably still refuse. Because I know the price of running a start-up isn't measured in dollars but in time and stress.
Finally: you are putting a lot of words in my mouth and thoughts in my head and making all kinds of statements about me. You probably would do better if you asked questions instead of making all kinds of weird inferences.
Aka a non-apology apology. Now that you have asked and I have told you you still stick to your guns? Really, that's just weird.
For someone that loves physical exercise and the outdoors, and has an appreciation for falling trees, it'll be their passion.
I can describe a situation where I decide to not cut trees if I don't need the money without passing judgement on others that do it for love. Assuming they are connected was your mistake.
It's possible to share something about one's life candidly even if it's different without thinking less of the other.
(Kill Bill: Vol 2)
and that it is -- definitely emotionally stirring. It was amazing to me, having watched it many years previous, that it was essentially a 1:1 representation of my widowed father.
when I watched it recently it was less funny than I had remembered it, much sadder. I think that's because I had realized that it wasn't as much of a satire/parody than I had thought originally.
[1] https://pictureshowman.com/when-did-the-term-movie-replace-m...
Said to be a reason for long life.
There’s a lot of pressure to conform to what’s expected of you and if you can ignore that you’ll probably be much happier than most people.
Personally I’d rather work for someone with more experience (all else being equal), but ultimately the best ideas and execution will win.
Older people helping to make more products/services is a downside to society at large?
I would understand if “working” was a competition for limited resources. But if it is, in fact, a value generating activity, how does it harm society at large?
e.g. Having more doctors work until later, if they are capable, is not a net positive for our society’s ability to provide healthcare?
Now advances in tech may continue to increase demand for workers elsewhere, once training and workers catch up. Or maybe not as much as roles are lost.
Posted a similar request elsewhere, but I think you need to substantiate this claim.
Furthermore, if you're claiming that tech destroys jobs in the general economy, then the consistent position would be that young or old should stop working in tech, not just older people. But the research I've seen shows that tech jobs generate non-tech jobs on net.
I hope you're never old with people around you that think the same as you think now. Either you can do the job or not.
As to immigration and women and others, it can be argued the end game of every able bodied adult working until death is quite dark -- even if it begins with most of them finding some enjoyment in it.
When I'm old I hope my family encourages me to find joy and meaning outside employment, once the finances have been secured for retirement.
Someone experienced continuing to work in tech is a net benefit to society; they contribute way above median taxes and their economic activity generates jobs. It's not zero-sum; the more people working in tech as senior engineers, the richer society gets.
The only case I think you could actually point to net downsides is that within tech, it's possibly easier for a more junior to get a job replacing a more senior when the latter retires, from reduction of competition. So from a selfish perspective of "I want your job" sure it makes your life easier if a senior engineer retires.
I'll put a [citation needed] on your claims around downsides to society and leave it at that. Judging by the downvotes it seems others don't agree with you either; if you want to persuade people I think you need to provide some concrete evidence.
Most positions are not like that. Even though tenured positions in a university is a finite resource, having a highly productive professor on such a position is beneficial, no matter the age. The problem here is in they way science is financed, not in the glut of Nobel laureates refusing to leave.
Tenure is a great and necessary phenomenon, but it is one of the best examples of the folks who get it needing to be more broad-minded than themselves.
Another "the cake is finite" dumb argument?
I then thought: Perhaps for me the working life, life filled with intellectual challenges, may never loose its appeal?! I will just have to make sure to make work more fun by getting rid of the boring parts and focus on the the fun parts. Then, at 67, why would I stop if I got to an almost "pure fun" state? Of course what is fun is also determined by what you are good at so I have no idea what that "work" will look like.
Just a thought from a 41 y/o.
after 6 months off i’m exploring new subjects new challenges
the biggest thing is that you have to talk about something
if you aren’t working that something could be family, tv, or hobbies
but you got to talk about something
if you’re world gets too small you have only simple things like tv 2 video games shows to talk about and for me that never felt enough
i like a sprinkle of drama in my life
i too am in my 40s
I was shocked.
In general I've felt best when I was making or doing something I felt was really worth doing. Happy clients, difficult work (by my own standards, but also, I like to think by humanity's), lots of time spend highly focused.
I'd say if you have the fire go for it fren
You are not crazy, if it is something you are passionate about. I tend to work on things I expect to take a decade or so before I step off. I really don’t feel that being a bit older is a detriment. I work smarter than I did and I get to work on things that really mean something for me, and maybe the world at large.
I say, go for it and best of luck!
Retire as a software engineer, pursue business ideas. Tinker. Maybe build wood cabinets and chairs.
Picture someone that just spent the last 30 years writing C, C++, Java (whatever) code, and maybe doing various lower level management roles. The age of AI has broken into an open gallup; said person is 55-65 years old, maybe now is a good time to have fun with their capabilities instead. So now they're learning Python instead of punching a 9-5 time clock, messing with LLMs or Stable Diffusion extensions. You get the idea.
We have hit an inflection point the scale of the World Wide Web circa the mid 1990s. There's a lot to do. Vast new territory to explore and it's moving fast. It feels a lot like the mid 1990s did in terms of speed. It feels like "internet time" has returned. It's damn exciting again.
For younger people here that are completely unfamiliar with the phrase "internet time." Vaguely the idea or sense of experience that development online circa the 1990s was moving abnormally fast compared to everything else (this is from 2001, when people still understood the original context of the phrase):
https://www.technologyreview.com/2001/04/01/275725/the-myth-...
You could travel, study a field deeply, read books in their original language, teach or mentor, etc.
You don't have anything you've always wished you could find more time to do properly?
I originally planned on getting my MBA from HBS, but due to some of the above circumstances, I decided to delay those plans. They were very understanding though.
Should working to 100 be aspirational, or even thought desirable, for 99.9999% of the population? Of course not.
Is it admirable to continue to work in a job where others (who you may or may not respect) determine the nature of the work and work environment…for one millisecond longer than you must? I don’t think so, not beyond a personal sacrifice to be made if the work is of unique critical importance to the direct well-being of people and the planet. Even then, think really hard about it.
Is it admirable to take up a slot in a fulfilling career area when so many young deserving candidates are knocking at the door? Not to me.
Should you pursue your personal passions in any way that suits you in your golden years, when economic issues are not a priority? Absolutely.
But who is this self-identified “old person” who is only now turning 65? Just a young punk I say. Take your hippity-hoppity music someplace else…
Meanwhile all of my peer group is obsessed with FIRE and dream of retiring early. All of us are also involved in pretty meaningless work that has no measurable impact on the world (five lines of code to a million line codebase is hardly world changing).
My generation faces a different economic situation. I know people in academia that love what they do and dreamed of living a life like Rudy's. In practice, they're stuck - huge debts, dismally low post-grad wages, stuck renting, just hoping for a stable position (luck over merit). K-12 teachers, lifetime musicians, social services, even nurses in similar positions.
Is meaning worth that kind of struggle?
Not for me. I want to bake as a craft in an owned place of business, then go home to sleep in a bedroom I own. Big Tech is the means to that end. Wake up, Clock in, autopilot, clock out, live. Within ethical reason, I will take any boring meaningless job if it pays well enough.
Locals complain about Big Tech killing the quirky unique culture my city used to have... and I agree! But what was the alternative? Pursuing the baking craft on debt and leases, paycheck to paycheck, barely treading water without any savings? That sounds like living a dream, getting sucked dry by parasites. There are public policies that could bring back the vibrancy, but no one wants density or lower property values (a prerequisite for housing the people that seed a vibrant culture)...
Even a tenured professor at Columbia, who won the Nobel prize and loves their work and has a wife earning a matching compensation, would have a pretty miserable life if they insisted on mortgaging a large Upper East Side townhouse.
It's the same in Palo Alto from what I've heard.
Unless you know of some source?
Jobs, family etc are around the cities. There is a minimum deposit requirement before you can get a mortgage (at 20% or less it’s hard but possible. Below about 5% no one will lend).
Houses are way overpriced and average quality is low (insulation, heating/cooling, water tightness etc). Paying for a house on a single income is out of reach for huge swathes of the population and would also leave a household vulnerable if the earner was unable to work.
Your ideal of paying for a house with one wage is something left behind in 1950 New Zealand. Jobs, children, lifestyles etc are all dictated by rent and mortgage requirements. It’s depressing how inflated housing costs are.
https://www.qv.co.nz/price-index/
https://www.newzealandshores.com/new-zealand-job-search/sala...
https://www.westpac.co.nz/home-loans-mortgages/first-home/ki...
There just aren't that many unusually desirable neighbourhoods, most are clustered around the average. Obviously, most average families can't actually end up living in neighbourhoods of above average desirability by definition.
Instead you need to understand power dynamics, social arrangements, how to negotiate, things like that.
For instance, your success as an artist in say the 1960s could come much easier if you spent your time becoming close friends with Peggy Guggenheim instead of working on your brush stroke.
Next time you see a stupid startup get funded, go research who the founders are and invariably you'll find like, their parents are hedge fund managers.
Now you could call me a cynic, complain it's unfair, or you could go out and meet some hedge fund managers with your time (this option works the best!)
This why some devs become SREs - your shift is over, you are done.
(This is why two income families are a sign of high wages more than poverty. And that both of you have relatively equal earning power of course.)
In my corner of the world it's the economically conservative crowd that advocates this - assuming money will follow because that's what happened to some of them in the 90s, when we were fresh out of communism.
I don’t have much wealth, I can’t buy a house for the foreseeable future, I will be done paying off literally all my debt including student loan next year, I have a wife and no kids. So yeah… I just want to do what I like and screw making another person or company richer, they’ll be fine.
And in China being a communist is actually a kind of capitalist. Thanks Deng.
I'm a SWE and I would love to FIRE one day but the goal of my retirement is very different from others. I want to buy some land with a house and a workshop, learn machining, chemistry, electrical engineering, etc and either contract for startups or start my own projects. Also, I'd like to bring some polish to the free software stack by rebuilding some foundational pieces of technology.
It is very hard to have the energy to do a full day of work, come home, and do a full night of work. Unfortunately, the market is not set up in a way where creative people (who can transform various verticals) can get funded to do good work.
> It is very hard to have the energy to do a full day of work, come home, and do a full night of work.
I really enjoyed school, and I always thought I’d be the type to continue education via MOOCs, self-guided study, what have you. But it’s hard to fit it in after a full day of work and family time!
And once you get kids, they are more effective than black holes with sucking out any time you could have for yourself. Its well spent time, don't get me wrong, most probably the best way to spend it for a parent, but personal efforts suffer correspondingly. And next day is not gonna be different. Same for weekends and holidays. All year, every year.
But, have also found you can switch between them if you're a consultant. You work on medium-term length projects, build up a bank, quit, then focus on your other interest for a few months. Need to live frugally, but it is possible (have been doing this cycle for years).
1) I tend to work at medium to large companies (Stubhub, Atlassian...) from anywhere from 7 months to 1.5 years. The reason being, as mentioned, that it's tough to do two things at the highest level at the same time. So I prefer to completely commit to one thing at a time - seems like for you, you have a lot of longterm clients that are constantly hitting you up for work. Guessing you're going to have to say no to new projects once you're ready to focus more on your interests.
2) So, when I'm working on a consulting job, it is my primary focus, and they get the best of me. And, I try to do at least 7 months of work, so that I do a substantial amount of work for them and they feel good about it - also, if you do too short a period, it will make it harder to get another job later on.
3) Although, it's important that while working at a consulting job, to keep up and improve your skills at whatever your outside interest is. Because if you don't, wow, you can really lose your skills and when your switch back to your interest, will need a ton of time to refreshing yourself. For me as a musician, this means would spend an hour a day practicing before work, specifically "sight-singing" as it is one of the most important skills for composition. In fact, would actually not just maintain the skill, but got a better at it over the course the consulting job.
4) When you have enough money and finish your consulting job, quit and switch back to your main interest. Will typically need to spend some time getting back up to speed. Sometimes this can take one month, other times (if you did a really long consulting job or you find a new skill you want to learn as is often the case for me) it can take a few months.
5) Now, fully focus on your main interest. You need to treat it just like regular work because it requires a ton of discipline, because it is so easy to get distracted and not do anything (I say this as I write this comment to you as a distraction from practicing:) For me, need a weekly work schedule (work mon - friday) and a daily routine to keep on track.
6) And just a suggestion about any outside interest. Work on smaller projects rather than trying to shoot for the moon. Because everything is takes a lot more work to do it at the highest level. Yeah, if I aim to create a music composition that I think will take a couple month, it often takes 3 or 4 times that, especially if I'm trying out a lot of stuff that I've never done before. I'd rather create something small that is really good than work on something large that I'll never finish.
7) And at least in my opinion, using this method, the quality of my compositions is quite high (at least to my standards) as they are my primary focus for months at a time.
8) Oh, and live cheaply. I used to live in SF, but moved way outside the city to save money (saved like 40% on rent, which went from $1350 to $700 - living with roommates in both situations).
Hope this helps!
Yes, you are right about my clients. And while the difference is subtle, it sounds like you are doing more of "contract jobs" than "consulting". But no matter what it is called, clearly it fits your goals, so that's great!
This year we're actually taking advantage of my work better than ever before with foreign travel and "make a schedule around weather/fun activities". I don't have any concrete plans to do what you're doing but maybe someday. It's a very interesting idea.
In any case, hooray for non-traditional work!
Retiring seems important for allowing younger generations to take their place. But if all you have is your work and you've lived for nothing more then I guess it makes sense to cling onto it until the end.
Its more of a value judgement on the meaningless of so much of modern work.
All the people I mentioned above are involved in work that’s probably more gratifying than making giant corporations richer. One is a playwright, one is a professor, one is a top pulmonologist in the country.
I don’t know what their day to day entails, but I can’t imagine it being as mind numbing as what I do.
I don't think he became a rich man from this. He had a house, raised his family, and that's all. He just enjoyed fixing cars.
There’s a lot of folks that make more than ur buddy’s dad, but I’m sure a lot of them are miserable in their jobs. In standard jobs u spend the majority of ur non sleeping hours in ur job. Are you rlly more “rich” if u can splurge on a few things on occasion but everything else is a chore compared to someone with an adequate amount to get by but enjoys the work?
Idk I find framing it this way and thinking about the dichotomy between short bursts of gratification and more subdued but consistent well being is interesting
Friends and family are great reprieve between working hours and obligations. I wouldn't want that to be the only thing going on. Stay at home moms and retired people around me are not the image of fulfilment.
The few retired people I've met that were happy and engaging are the kind that didn't stop working past retirement.
My father worked an extra year so he could buy his lifelong dream - Harley Davidson. Few years later, he is still very much into it, found new friends and community he enjoys being part of, going out on various adventures.
Hobby for me is something I like doing sometimes. Passion is something that defines at least part of me, think about it a lot in my free time, train for it etc. If you have proper passion(s), retirement means just more time for them. Like say rock climbing.
The idea of having free time to finally travel around the world in slow pace, or climb rock whenever I want sounds like paradise.
IMHO it is absolutely a good thing to dream of a life which values things outside of employment.
We just happen to use the same word - “work” - for both kinds of situations.
It's... difficult, to convey to people what it's like having a job you like doing, working for people that treat you with respect, when they've pretty much only ever had jobs they didn't like and working for people that treated them poorly.
Like - there's a floor on how shitty a job can be, if no job is a valid alternative.
Welfare is good because people like being employed and supporting them gives them more time and resources to find a better job. It increases employment because of this. (this is search/matching theory.)
Conversely, the kind of non-working people who are poorest and most need support are children and the elderly, not early retirees.
That said, you don't have to work 120 hours a week just because you're employed, and hours worked has also been trending down over time.
> the average person isn't forced to compromise their values or submit themselves to abuse just to afford rent and food.
This is what happens without full employment; full employment means you don't have to do this because it's hard to hire new people (they're all already employed) so it's easy to change jobs.
Full employment comes with a whole host of other problems for the kind of economy we inhabit today -- a sure enough sign that things aren't working under the current paradigm. We need a change if something like 'full employment' is expected to be a positive thing.
I'm not seeing the problems.
The "cushion" of unemployed people, according to economists, is very important for staving off runaway effects that drive bad macroeconomic dynamics.
I agree that many people do not find much meaning in their work, but most people also do not make as much money as software engineers do. Most people cannot fathom retiring early. It simply is impossible. A lot of software engineers are going to realize that, hey, if I save up and invest money aggressively for roughly 10 to 15 years, I will have enough to live comfortably for the rest of my life without having to do work that I do not like. However, most professions do not make nearly enough money to achieve the goal of retiring early, so they really have no reason to discuss or even ponder early retirement. It's never gonna come up.
You find this pretty much everywhere with high accomplished people - they don’t want to quit, even when they can afford to. Skilled doctors who keep working, professors who keep teaching, artists who never stop creating - well into their 70s and 80s.
The older generation didn't grow up with technology so perhaps it's not as obvious to them.
Personally, I’m pursuing FIRE for the freedom to choose my work regardless of how much (or even if) it pays. Decoupling my work from market incentives.
I don’t consider retirement to be sitting around doing nothing. It’s waking up and choosing my own path. It’s freedom.
I imagine there would be folks willing to pay a lot more for their future options, if such an options market existed.
I’m currently in academia, so I don’t make that much money but fortunately do make enough. And I get to work on stuff which isn’t quite what I’d like, but close enough; and the job isn’t very demanding and I have free time, so I can also do the kind of work that I want. I do want more stability though, better income means I can save money and academia is opaque and uncertain
I love writing code, I don't think I'll ever fully quit, but I also really want to retire early.
The problem is that corporate America is riddled with politics and inefficiencies, and offers little to no long term security for all but the most senior employees.
From what I've seen the people who never retire are in academia, medicine, own a business, or are just so accomplished that they effectively have corporate tenure.
I for one is at my 40s but I definitely feel older than the 100yr old in the article. I lost all of my passions of the tech in the previous 2 years and just want out when I have the $$$.
I'm not FIRE but took most of the last year to work on projects that I enjoy. There's absolutely no comparison to working for oneself vs. working for a boss for a paycheck. The former has me loving life and my work, the latter will have my questioning my career choice and the system we live in.
Probably in 10 years we'll have something resembling a UBI in most major western countries, so finally everyone will have the freedom to work on what they enjoy instead of selling their soul for a paycheck.
If it generated a stable income for you and the company then it has a measurable impact on the world.
The world consists of people, people with higher income contribute to higher prosperity and in turn more resources for what looks like world impact works.
I add like to sense of stability there as well. If there is the nature unpredictability involved, waking up everyday is quite a challenge. Unless you consider unpredictability into your framework, getting paid to do things you love doing can be quite difficult. The person has achieved the highest accomplishment in his field, he has tenure and thus from the outside perspective he is living a much more stable and routine life.
There are a couple other versions of this full paper
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24127/w241...
I wonder what people like Peter Thiel have to say about it, would he consider Rudy Marcus a "winner", maybe bigger one than himself? I recall something about Thiel looking down on the life choices and motivations of scientists.
The people I know who look down on modern academics, tend to dislike a set of changes that started happening in the mid-late sixties and ramped up through at least the 2010s.
I'm not sure that's applicable to someone who got their PhD in 1946.
I'm gonna be honest here. I don't think anyone is.
Who gives a fuck? He's just a guy, much like this guy is just a guy.
Don't waste space and give me your take as opposed to mentioning other people, because they are not here and they cannot debate, while you are and can.
Friendly amendment: You mean Peter Thiel, presumably?
I like the work of Blueprint by Bryan Johnson, though it's not replicable for most and felt a bit too much. For now, my lifestyle include eating clean, weightlifting, cardio, and good sleep. This is it or there's more to it? Appreciate any other resources/readings to pursue a long life
>“The main thing is finding something that you enjoy doing, that preferably doesn’t harm others, and that tests whatever aptitude one has, that tests one’s ingenuity,”
> “It’s almost like a kind of a game. You against nature.”
But you cannot confine it to science and academia, rather it's the general background 'out there-ness' of the whole planet which then finds its way in various sectors.
In other words you don't get the Einsteins without the Hitlers and you don't get the Richard Feynmans without the Charlie Mansons
You, sir, are winning that game. See you "at work" because in 59 years I also want to be productive still!
Not really a mystery why one of these entails passion, energy, and excitement at age 100 while the other doesn't.
So you can accept your current burn rate or change to a context that burns you out less. Personally I’m in corporate job (senior eng at sp500 company) and I also don’t have the same fights you do. I have a lot of flexibility and zone time and no politics.
Apart then that I have a very fun and rewarding hobby: growing heirloom apple trees and making my own cider.
Nothing wrong with working, but I’ll be glad when I never have a google calendar reminder again.
After a certain point the focus should no longer be on doing work first hand, but should be working to help, mentor and advise others to provide them a path instead of occupying the top.
Fostering the next generations should be the goal, not occupying career space until the grave.
How is his work since 70 at the expense of the next generation?
People should do what they enjoy. If that's mentoring others, then great. If one doesn't enjoy mentoring others, that's fine too.
Also while I’m not commenting on his work in particular, but there’s the colloquialism “Science progresses one funeral at a time”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
Although from the sentiment in this thread I guess that makes me the minority. I’m also not a Nobel laureate, to each their own I guess.
[1] 100 Year Old Dr. Howard Tucker : "Retirement is the Enemy of Longevity":
https://boomingencore.com/en/article/100-year-old-dr-howard-...
Anyway she spent 40 years working as a psychiatric nurse and later as a therapist and got tired of the sex abuse stories and all the other horrors our lovely society produces to make people go insane so I don't blame her for retiring. Some people have real jobs.
The fact that in the vast majority of cases, people who are faced with life-threatening adversity, struggle in an effort to overcome it rather than consigning themselves to death, suggests this is the overwhelming perception held by people.
Natural selection ensures that the perception that life is good will always be the dominant one amongst any species.
And he does everything. Is a leader, guide and mentor for all the young scientists. He does serious intellectual work. Sometimes spends all day out in the sun, improving/fixing/maintaining telescopes. They held a conference in his honor last month.
The lesson is not to judge people's productivity using just their age as the gauge.
In the US, various forms of age discrimination against people over 40 have become illegal over the years, including mandatory retirement. So the law is moving the other way.
Normally he should lose it and become professor emeritus instead.