Hacker News Reader

If your goal is to make a lot of money and to influence a lot of people — you are guaranteed to be unhappy. If you make a lot more money than others, you’ll still make a lot less than some. No amount can fulfil that “goal” because it’s not a goal it’s a direction, like “head west, and keep heading west” … you can’t reach “west”.

Different point of view —

If there are people that you care about and your goal is to help those people - you can be happy and you can succeed. If you only help a few, it’s still worth it, because you care about them. If you help a few more, even better.

If you’re hoping to get rich by helping people who you don’t care about, give it up, stop wasting time. Step back and think about it.

Totally agree. Although if you happen to have the skillset to make lots of money you can use that to help more people. That gives a reason to tolerate bullshit jobs too.

I'm surprised that your takeaway from my venting was that I want to be rich. There are much easier ways to get rich than becoming an expert at something. Out of the four options, I've chosen the one that makes the least money (#4 arguable I suppose).

The reason I became an expert was to do useful things in the world. It does not feel like that's possible beyond a tiny hour-by-hour contribution to a single client at a time.

Even the top researchers in the world don't make an impact beyond a tiny bump on the graph of knowledge of their field unless they are also lucky enough to be founding members or on the right side of a paradigm shift.

All you can do is look for places where you can make a contribution and keep an eye out for places that could matter in the future. No one knows what will matter in a few years, but it's often apparent what won't make a difference (the well-trodden path).

Sorry for focusing on the money aspect.

I agree with a lot of your bullet points, particularly your characterisation of faang, but the overall message that a single software developer can’t make much impact is needlessly negative.

Compared to any other worker throughout history you’ve got more access to being able to duplicate your work and to reach more people. A peasant in the 1500s could help just one person at a time. But what’s actually stopping you? You can publish open source software that is not limited to helping 1 person at a time, or create educational content that helps more than 1 at a time and so on, or contribute to existing open source software to do the same. It’s such a privileged position you’re in.

IT isn't music. IT isn't chess. IT isn't writing or typing.

IT is a moving target. IT is a relentless grind.

So be gentle to yourself, and don't feel pressured. The article is not really about achieving expert performance, it's about improving your craft (in a way that may lead to expert performance).

Improving is growth. Now with IT, I think it's important to separate the temptation to learn whatever shiney Serverless-AI-Rust-Crypto thing that's trendy this quarter from learning fundamentals, things that don't change.

I've read that "learning LISP will make you a better programmer". I don't know, because I've never tried, but it feels like something with some truth. Perhaps the thing you need isn't LISP, but colour-space algorithms, or design patterns, or technical writing, or public-speaking, or good old SED and AWK.

But there's something out there that will help you grow, and give you heightened confidence and some lateral skills or fundamental skills to not only solve today's normal problems, but be able to solve tomorrow's off-the-wall problems as well.

But as to why? It's my experience that if I'm not learning something, or deepening my knowledge of something, then I don't really feel happy, or satisfied. But if I'm learning, even if I'm not in a good job, I still feel it's worthwhile because I'm largely doing it for myself.

Take the above with a grain of salt. It may not chime with you, or it may not apply to your circumstances. But if nothing else, be kind to yourself.

There is an inherent pleasure in becoming competent, and if you become competent in a profitable skill, practice, or discipline, you can make a lot of money and use it to have additional fun and pleasure. This is an important point, but it is not a cure for the chronically depressed or angry person who sees the display of tantrums as a demonstration of depth and intelligence.

The whole point of education, being good at something or maybe even expert is not that it guarantees you something. There is always order of magnitude more musicians, actors, scientists, engineers, writers and software developers than the ones "with outsized influence on the world". Being good at something gives you just better chances to use opportunities life might give you at some point. That's all. These opportunities may not even come and that's OK.

Why are you assuming that all people try to become experts in order to impress, make an impact, earn money? Frequently top performers that commit themselves to these things are only partially motivated by them. Take for example e-sport youngsters, these people don't even have these things in sight but they still commit themselves fully into whatever they are doing.

Become an expert at bullshitting maybe?

I don't disagree with your overall point, but for me the payoff of being a good engineer is working less.

I'm salaried and work for a big oldtech shop writing mostly glue code and fixing god-damn dependency issues. When I get more productive I turn that into less time spent at my desk or thinking about my job.

> Become an expert at bullshitting maybe?

I'd literally rather kill myself.

> When I get more productive I turn that into less time spent at my desk or thinking about my job.

So your advice is: check out of your job. Quiet quit. Get into knitting. Honestly? Probably the best advice I'm going to get.

I think you do #3 but look for profitable niches and clients that can afford to pay better. Or look for niches that have a more important impact.

Being good at something, executing something well, beating a challenge is extremely satisfying.

Nobody said this is some kind of hack for dollars and bling.

>1. Work for a FAANG or adtech for 70 hours per week with a toxic manager on optimizing the psychological weapons and dark patterns they use to keep their users in a negative feedback cycle of dependence on their increasingly shitty and hostile products

Say what you want about the morality of working for them, but almost no one is working 70 hours there and the true .1% engineers are making multiple $M per year so the tradeoff may be worth it.

>3. Work in a niche industry or a consulting firm doing interesting and important work, but always for one client at a time, having an extremely limited impact (and limited pay to match)

If you are just selling your labor as a butt in a seat then yes this is true. I know solo tech consultants making 200k/mo because they moved up in the meta chain and sell strategy to CTOs.

>4. Start my own business and work 90 hour weeks spending 95% of my time on organizational business things that I'm bad at, leaving virtually no hours for the thing I'm a phenomenal super-expert at.

This is just fantasy.

>'ve chosen #3, but I'm honestly sick of just continuing to just get better and better at software engineering and having it mean absolutely fuck-all. What's the point? Why would you ever bother becoming an expert?

I think you have a warped view of reality and frankly of the value of expertise. There are world class engineers all over the place making 7 figures a year very easily. They aren't working 80 hours a week, they aren't working for soul sucking corps on boring problems, etc. I suspect you also aren't accurately measuring your own skill relative to these people. At the minimum they aren't as cynical and defeatist as you and know how to market their abilities.

>> 4. Start my own business ...

> This is just fantasy.

Are you saying starting your own business is an unrealistic fantasy? (On HN?) Or which part of it is fantasy? If starting a company is fantasy, it strengthens my point.

> here are world class engineers all over the place making 7 figures a year very easily. They aren't working 80 hours a week, they aren't working for soul sucking corps on boring problems, etc.

They're not "all over the place", they're in Silicon Valley. No software engineers outside of the valley make 7 figures as an employee. Maybe in New York at the Staff level. Maybe.

And if they're not working for soul sucking corps on boring problems, what are they doing? Where are the fruits of their labor? Because the majority of the software coming out of these companies gets used by approximately nobody and then thrown away, and the majority of the rest is user-hostile trash.

> I suspect you also aren't accurately measuring your own skill relative to these people.

"You're not accomplishing things because you're bad" -- maybe. That'd certainly be an easy resolution to this paradox. As an internet stranger you have no reason to believe that I'm as good as I say. But you should realize that this is completely circular logic: you're assuming that everyone who is poor is dumb and everyone who has not found fulfillment in life is bad; everyone who is successful is skilled. That doesn't match reality. Like, at all.

>Are you saying starting your own business is an unrealistic fantasy? (On HN?) Or which part of it is fantasy? If starting a company is fantasy, it strengthens my point.

You have a fantastical view of what starting and running business entails

>And if they're not working for soul sucking corps on boring problems, what are they doing? Where are the fruits of their labor? Because the majority of the software coming out of these companies gets used by approximately nobody and then thrown away, and the majority of the rest is user-hostile trash.

You have some deep hatred for modern society or something. Maybe you should write a manifesto in your cabin in the woods.

>But you should realize that this is completely circular logic: you're assuming that everyone who is poor is dumb and everyone who has not found fulfillment in life is bad; everyone who is successful is skilled. That doesn't match reality. Like, at all.

In the specific domain of Software Engineering there is a clear path to success, talent is recognized and is almost always very well compensated. If you are a 'poor' software engineer I suspect it's not because the world just failed to recognize your genius. Sorry.

>As an internet stranger you have no reason to believe that I'm as good as I say.

Are you Grandmaster or above on Codeforces? Do you have IOI/IOM Medals? Did you win an ICPC Medal? Did you rank on the Putnam? Have you gotten job offers at Jane Street/HRT/Citadel/ETC? Are you Staff level or above at a FAANG? If you haven't done at least one of those how can you seriously think you are world class? There are lots of cracked people who have done Multiple! Are there people who have done none but are also world class? Yes! But they probably aren't crying about the shitty problems they work on or how poor and unsuccessful they are!

> You have a fantastical view of what starting and running business entails

Have you started a successful business? Can you honestly say you spent less than 90 hours per week on it? Can you honestly say the vast majority of your time wasn't spent on "business things" instead of deeply technical product development? You keep just generically hinting that I'm wrong without actually saying how.

> Maybe you should write a manifesto in your cabin in the woods.

It's awful that Kaczynski resorted to terrorism, because his manifesto is a respected piece of writing and philosophical thought. I see it recommended every so often even on HN (always with a denouncement of his actual actions). Don't worry about me: hurting anyone else would be deeply opposed to my goal of making a positive impact. But saying my ideas sound like Kaczynski's is not as big a neg as you might think.

> If you are a 'poor' software engineer I suspect it's not because the world just failed to recognize your genius.

Weird assumptions. I'm not poor, and many people have said that I'm a genius, and it means fuck-all. I don't feel under-recognized, I feel under-utilized. Being a genius, being an expert, means nothing. That's my point. Why bother?

> In the specific domain of Software Engineering there is a clear path to success, talent is recognized and is almost always very well compensated.

Talent is recognized!? Sure, if you're living in one of about six tech hubs in the world and you're white or Asian and you're not too old and you're not a woman and you've graduated from a top 20% university and you've got friends that recommended you and you're willing to sell your soul to help some psychopath get more clicks for his Facebook for Dogs website. And even then, no, it's notoriously hard to measure the talent of one engineer vs. another.

> Are you Grandmaster or above on Codeforces? Do you have IOI/IOM Medals? Did you win an ICPC Medal? Did you rank on the Putnam? Have you gotten job offers at Jane Street/HRT/Citadel/ETC? Are you Staff level or above at a FAANG? If you haven't done at least one of those how can you seriously think you are world class?

"Class" is right. These are class indicators more than talent indicators. Strengthening my point that people have warped views of what "talent" is. Is that what you think talent is? Someone who grinds leetcode?

Even if I accept your premise, what are those people doing? Working as a quant? That's my #2: "Work for a bank or fintech as a middleman trying to get that extra 0.01% rent on other people's labor". Those people aren't successful by any measure other than money. They are harming the world. They are a net negative. Good thing your parents hired a tutor for you to ace the Putnam, now you can help billionaire parasites suck more blood from the economy!

Yes, if money is all you care about, becoming a quant is a good idea. That's not becoming an expert, that's knowing how to play the exact game you need to get hired there. The quants at Jane Street are not "more expert" than the exploited game developers making five figures at Blizzard.

The impression I'm getting from you is: you believe (1) money is the only possible measure of success, and (2) people who make more money are smarter and people who make less money are dumber. Those are both deeply wrong, both in the sense of "incorrect" and "disturbing".

> I don't feel under-recognized, I feel under-utilized. Being a genius, being an expert, means nothing. That's my point. Why bother?

Ah yes the 'genius' that just can't find anything useful to work on lol.

>Talent is recognized!? Sure, if you're living in one of about six tech hubs in the world and you're white or Asian and you're not too old and you're not a woman and you've graduated from a top 20% university

Actual geniuses generally have no problem getting into and graduating with honors from a top 50 University let alone the top 20%. Just because your mommy called you smart doesn't make it true...

>"Class" is right. These are class indicators more than talent indicators. Strengthening my point that people have warped views of what "talent" is. I

I'm sorry but if you research the IOI/IOM winners I think you'll find they are overwhelmingly low-middle to upper-middle class. Hardly the children of billionaires...

>Is that what you think talent is? Someone who grinds leetcode?

No but these are clear indicators OF talent. IF you are a genius programmer but you can't compete with ICPC winners or rank top of the world in Codeforces e.g. there is a serious argument to be made that you aren't in fact a genius programmer.

>That's my #2: "Work for a bank or fintech as a middleman trying to get that extra 0.01% rent on other people's labor". Those people aren't successful by any measure other than money. They are harming the world. They are a net negative. Good thing your parents hired a tutor for you to ace the Putnam, now you can help billionaire parasites suck more blood from the economy!

Even the biggest misanthrope in the world who actually thinks about this problem doesn't believe that Quants are net negative for the world lol.

None of the Putnam fellows I know were the children of billionaires nor did they have tutors lmao. They were on the team and practiced like hell to win. Again you just have a warped and incorrect view of reality.

>The quants at Jane Street are not "more expert" than the exploited game developers making five figures at Blizzard.

Game devs are generally good but it's incredibly obvious there is a skill gap between those two groups. To say otherwise is ignorant.

>The impression I'm getting from you is: you believe (1) money is the only possible measure of success, and (2) people who make more money are smarter and people who make less money are dumber. Those are both deeply wrong, both in the sense of "incorrect" and "disturbing".

Both completely wrong. You just aren't as smart as you think. Even if you were and you interviewed with my company or were raising money to start your own you would be a flat reject if you displayed even 10% of the attitude you show here.

You're just a fundamentally broken person. Your opinion of yourself is not based in reality. Your judgements of others are wrong. Your estimation of their motivations are flawed. You were the guy that got locked inside lockers in high school but you deserved it because you are an enormous pompous ass. You were the kid that stood up in lectures to deliver an unhinged incorrect rant when the Professor asked a question and the entire room groaned because you completely lack self awareness of your own lack of knowledge. Now you bitch and moan on the internet how no one in Petoskey recognizes your unmatched genius and they force you to work on the IT system for your local YMCA. You complain about losing the game when you never even attempted to play it. You're the overweight office worker who thinks he can play on an NBA team despite never making it past JV. You're no Ted Kaczynski, you're Al Bundy. You're just a C level player stuck in a bad LARP.

Your insults would land better if they were anywhere close to accurate. You need to get your crystal ball polished, because your psychic reading of who I am is way off. Maybe you can't actually know the intimate details of someone's personality from a few internet comments?

Some people's goal in life is to make money so that they can do nothing. Other people get pleasure from accomplishing things. I can't imagine doing something and not wanting to get better at it. What's the point? What's the point to life if you just earn money eat and drink? Seems shallow and useless.

> Other people get pleasure from accomplishing things

Accomplishing what!? More fucking clicks for their shitty boss's worthless website? More rent for the rent-seekers? More dark patterns? More Facebooks for Dogs? More trying to surf waves of buzzword hype on a Venture Capitalist Surfboard and hoping to exit before you wipe out? Accomplishing what!? Nobody is doing anything!

I work on software that I'm actually proud of. And then approximately five people use it for a few years and it dies a slow death. Because it's a shitty consulting business model for a single client at a time. We could actually sell the software to potentially thousands of clients, but the company is run by parasitic accountants playing some bullshit short-term capitalism game and it doesn't suit their needs. Nobody gives a shit about profit, they care about their game of Business Checkers they're playing against other members of the Corporate Caste. This kind of bullshit is rampant throughout all public companies.