Hacker News Reader

Comment by fuzzfactor | Hacker News Reader

I'm impressed too, this is an excellent head start.

Years later as a still-young technology enthusiast it would be likely that even more impressive projects will be accomplished. By then it may be largely unknown how advanced this was at this young of an age. Simply because there will be other sharp minds that do impressive stuff but only got started in their 20's, and reaching the same age they would be considered by most observers as peers.

But this head start will be an unfair advantage that can be made to last forever anyway.

Even if it does turn out to be kind of like a "secret weapon" after a number of years or decades.

View on HN

Why is the advantage of early learning and understanding “unfair”?

I read it in a “first to market” unfair advantage type of way, not ethically unfair. Of course, there are larger societal questions around access to early learning opportunities but I didn’t read into it that way.

Yes. I would say the advantage of starting early in honest business can help to get a leg up enough to be in position to avoid any temptation toward unfair dealing, even more so over the long run.

I guess "Unfair Advantge" isn't the most accurate term, I'm using the meme terminology where each person or company is supposed to identify and enhance their own unique strengths as a natural way to perform on an unlevel playing field, one tilted in their own favor.

In case a competitive environment arises, it could even be a matter of survival over alternative operators who do not possess those particular advantages. They are the ones who might grumble about it being "unfair".

if this were true then only old people would be discovering important stuff.

I would agree, I think you're right, mainly innovators who are so old they are no longer teenagers ;)

When an obvious outlier pops up, I really respect that can represent an alternative path which might be maintained without serious limitations imposed by mainstream momentum.

Plus you have to figure, if you're going to discover anything at all before you're 20, you're going to need to start when you're still a teenager, or better yet a pre-teen. Why wait decades? OTOH, why not continue to be an outlier decade after decade and put the continuous improvement approach through a compounding effect?

Kind of like you would do financially with compound interest where starting early has a clear mathematical advantage of its own.

but theres no linear path to "discovery", sure you can be more technically competent in a variety of different fields if you start earlier and continue learning but that really doesn't mean you will have original ideas. Of course there is a limit to what i'm saying, if someone starts when they are 60, there is a low chance they will make many discovery but not starting at age 14 doesn't preclude you from making great discoveries (provided you start at a decent age to learn technical mastery).

Good point.

Technical mastery is one part of the equation that may or may not need to be built over the decades (but is too often arrested along the way).

However simple random occurrence is still a component and you would expect two decades of effort to double your chances of a breakthrough compared to a single decade, but in an environment of declining opportunity those earlier wins might be far more valuable than the same thing happening later on.

I think many of us are seeing the creativity here and recognizing it's one of the things that can lead toward unprecedented discovery which is where some of the most major impact comes from.

That path to discovery sure is impossible to pinpoint, especially when a certain amount of technical mastery combined with significant good fortune along with true creative effort are still not enough most of the time.

There's just something to be said about starting out more advanced in some way or another than others your own age, and maintaining that over the long term.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com