Combining those two in a movie would kill the most patient directors
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116654/trivia/?ref_=tt_trv_trv
It killed Richard Stanley's career for 20 years. After which he got the make the fairly well-received Color Out of Space, just in time for his career to get re-killed by a domestic abuse allegation.
> Brando, knowing how much Sinatra hated cheesecake, had purposely flubbed each take so that Sinatra would have to eat piece after piece of cheesecake. The next day, they came back and shot the scene perfectly on the first take.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355022506_Marlon_Br...
'laziness is the mother of all tech invention'...
But genius is the hare that will always be beaten by the persistent tortoise if it stands still long enough.
Definitely not always. That's survivorship bias. There's no guarantee that if you're a hard working tortoise you'll ever beat a hare. Like there's no guarantee that if I'll practice my soccer moves 24/7 for 10 years I'll ever be able to beat Ronaldo.
Because Ronaldo keeps practicing and improving, as any professional athlete would.
But the hare is the person who never bothers to train or improve beyond their natural talents, who thinks they've already won the race, so there's no point in even running. The "smart kid" who coasts through school and never leaves their comfort zone but winds up in a dead end job with only wasted potential and unfulfilled dreams, while the people who actually applied themselves blew past them in college and got better jobs and achieved their goals.
That wasn't may point. My point was that if everyone applied themselves, not everyone would even reach Ronaldo's level. Otherwise every hardworking person in Namibia or Zimbabwe would be Elon Musk wealthy by now.
But they aren't. Why is that? is it because they didn't apply themselves as hard as Musk? Or is it because opportunities in life are limited, no matter how hard you work, and getting them is a lottery of birth and of chance.