Here’s to the Misfits
blog.alexmaccaw.com
blog.alexmaccaw.com
Here on HN we have one of these articles every week. I think that all of the "misfits" should acknowledge one thing: school is not for YOU it's for everybody to have "similar" chances in life.
Yes, yes you're all beautiful trouble makers with a mission to change the world. Now do things please.
Gosh I feel snarky today :)!
No, your post is pretty on point. I think everyone here feels this way to an extent.
Don't be sated by your dreams; reality feels better.
You're trying to fit misfits into the same type of homogenous box that school systems put kids in.
Please don't do that. The world has enough people trying to be unique and quirky for the sake of it.
> Just be yourself.
Yes, do this.
Good luck with that.
http://threekeywords.com/quotes/category/author/tocqueville/
"Be your realself" bears the same psychological paradoxes and pressure than "be yourself". Check http://beyondgrowth.net/identity/be-yourself-but-not-because... for a casual approach.
Now that I'm in my forties, I definitely feel like I am more myself than I was in my twenties.
You make it sound like it's mutually exclusive. You don't need to express your authentic desires or to fulfill them to be a psychological healthy person.
I stand by my point that we are always ourselves, wether we want to hide what we call ourselves or not. And hiding it isn't a problem in itself. Reality boundaries are healthy to our desires of "total desires".
It's normal to be stressed out by the limites life impose on our desires.
Here's to the people who fit in. Here's to the people who try really hard but never quite get there. Here's to the people who don't fit in but always wanted to. Here's to the people who do the dirty jobs cos they they pay the bills and no-one else wants to. Here's to the underdog. Here's to the loser. Here's to the person who actually finishes their degree. Here's to the 50 year old who's still innovating. Here's to the 25 year old who isn't.
Different people are different. Let's celebrate all of them not just the chosen few from the subgroup we've marked out as "special" this year.
Apple is so, so, so far at the opposite end of the spectrum than what the commercial championed.
The were the maverick to IBM's stodgy conformist.
Not that I saw them that way.
From talking to microsofties, though, they had the underdog/maverick image internally at least until 2005. All the techies I knew left MS long ago, and all the business people I know at MS joined in the last 3-5 years and never bought into the "underdog" image.
I see that kind of out of the box thinking and pure passion in many of their most recent designs. The iPhone is a perfect example. Look at where that paradigm shifting product has taken them, and think about how that device is only 5 years old. I see the same transformative execution and design in their iPad, and now the rest of the OEMs are desperately trying to catch up instead of having delivered. Intel had to invent a new product category just to first describe, and then compete with the Macbook Air.
When I try to imagine what that quote means for Apple, I always thought it meant designing the absolute best products for people, no matter what, -no compromises. That they have delivered beyond what anybody could have possibly expected is a realization of that quote, not a negation to me. But maybe you take it to mean something else? They've certainly changed the world...
They are the most aggressive in IT doing this, so in a way they are misfits.
[Citation Needed]
"Apple, which has been one of the most aggressive players in patent litigation..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation
"Apple is known for and promotes itself as an active and aggressive pursuer of enforcement of its intellectual property interests."
Yes the patent system is broken, but a company choosing not to enforce or license their IP isn't the definition of abuse. Violating your own FRAND terms and suing someone for Frand is clearly abuse of it though. Nor are Motorala, Nokia, Google and others "abusing" the patent system when they protect their IP that they choose not to license. They are using the system for the exact purpose for which it is designed.
If we don't like that, it's on us to change the system appropriately.
Like, and I'm just brainstorming here, number of litigation events per patent held, or offensive suits vs defensive countersuits, or really, anything other than "well extremetech said so and that's good enough for government work!".
As it is your assertion doesn't seem to pass the smell test. Surely if we count shell companies, Intellectual Ventures is far and away the biggest litigant in the IT space. And if we're ruling them out, you'd be hard-pressed to beat the major baseband companies.
I was under the impression that Apple only litigated on patents they legitimately held and did not want to licence. This in contrast to some of their opponents who are litigating against Apple on FRAND patents.
I think your problem is with patent law itself (which would be legitimate). Apple is much better than the large players suing on FRAND or the active patent troll firms imo. You can't bring a butter knife to a gun fight, and as much as you might like any given company to take a principled stand and not protect their IP while other companies are aggressively doing so, for them to do so would actually be beyond naive.
Yes, my main problem is the patent system itself and that it allows basic patents to be used to ban competing products. Notice that a patent itself is not bad, only the holder decides whether to use it destructively or defensively.
Apple was sued originally by Nokia for the iPhone and they had to pay some money as a result. However, in the case of Android Apple sued first and has been continuing to be the aggressor. All the FRAND lawsuits were only brought later, although they were in response to years of Apple not paying any royalties as demanded by FRAND, the only vendor to do so.
Now don't get me wrong: All other smartphone companies aren't saints either. Nokia wanted to protect their market share and the FRAND guys probably also didn't press for their royalties at first, thinking Apple might get into a cross-licensing agreement with regards to their patents. But Apple has been the lone company not willing to license their patents at all. As a customer, ask yourself: do you want to be dependent on just Apple for continued innovation? If you think they cannot do any wrong ask the early adoptors of Mountain Lion (especially power users).
I'll just note that depending on your point of view, it is effortless to argue that the entity stealing the IP could be viewed as the aggressor, and suing to stop said aggression would be defense.
But I will continue to argue that companies have leeway in how they use patents, and exploiting a broken patent system is not in the interest of society.
What you are labeling as 'abuse' is much closer to 'using the system precisely as it was intended'. You may not like the system. You may disagree with the goals of it, or you may think (as I do) that the goals are worthwhile but the system is actually a hindrance to the goals in many cases, but it is clear that Apple is litigating to protect it's IP in direct accordance with the intent of patent law. They aren't using litigation as a revenue stream like patent-troll shell firms, they aren't using litigation for retribution on FRAND, they are protecting specific designs and technologies for which they have been awarded patents and they choose (as is their right) not to lisence.
Abusing a system != using a broken system expressly as it was designed.
However, with the patent office basically accepting everything as an invention, it has now turned into the opposite. The simple algorithm I could have come up on my own _without_ consulting any patent is now illegal for me to use. Without the patent society would have been much better off since many, many programmers would be able to independently come up with the same solution given the same requirements.
That is one interpretation of the intent of patent law. In the USA, our Constitution spells out the intent pretty clearly:
>"to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
It's worth pointing out however, that Apple is acting in complete accordance of your version of intent though (patent law's purpose = disclosure of technology). All of the patents they are litigating on have been disclosed and readily available. It doesn't change the substance of the fact that they are not wielding patent law abusively.
>However, with the patent office basically accepting everything as an invention, it has now turned into the opposite. The simple algorithm I could have come up on my own _without_ consulting any patent is now illegal for me to use. Without the patent society would have been much better off since many, many programmers would be able to independently come up with the same solution given the same requirements.
Again, this is different, and has zero to do with Apple and everything to do with the how patent law is designed. I agree with you whole-heartedly. But as long as we focus the blame on companies exercising their rights in absolutely mundane ways in accordance with the law instead of the law itself, I'm afraid not much is going to change. It really misses the point. And I'll stress it again, of all of the disputes on the patent landscape, Apple seems to be one of the least abusive litigants, in stark contrast to FRAND litigators and patent troll firms.
Companies may act according to law, but laws can be unjust. As a customer you have the power to punish companies for their wrongdoing, and that is one reason I will not buy Apple products. Just sitting there passively and saying they are not breaking any laws while they are laughing in your face is not an option.
Every rose has its thorns.
Every rose has to have thorns. Especially in a Mutually Assured Litigation game.
> instead of trying to compete.
Being your 'weird self' means, by definition, that you have to be a misfit? Doesn't this imply than anyone who enjoyed or benefited from high school/college isn't being genuine? Am I missing something, or is this a puff piece for being offbeat?
You could think of it as the author's attempt to rationalize away his own society-perceived negative aspects (some real, some imagined) of being a misfit.
You could also think of it as a motivational post for others who feel like they don't fit in who might find a little inspiration in his words and in the story he related. Sometimes a few good words can be the difference between someone committing suicide vs turning things around and facing life head on.
The reason you are not fitting properly may just be because you are being an asshole. Please be constantly aware of this fact as you go around imposing your special snowflakeness on everyone else.
Although for those of us struggling internally in social situations, more self-doubt is probably not what is needed.
The capitalization of 'Misfits' in the title looks like a proper noun.
Anyway, to make up for this, I will tribute the Misfits:
Hey, HN! I raped your mother today! And it doesn't matter much to me, as long as she spread!
Just the plain barrier to entry.
Would love to see a citation for that. From what I can see of the two examples given, one (Cleese) wasn't expelled and one (Le Carré) didn't go to the school that I presume he's talking about (Clifton College)?
And, in case you don't know, Rohlihlala in fact means "he who shakes the tree"! A name given to him at birth.
Talk about destiny!
Because they change the world.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -George Bernard Shaw
By definition, a misfit is one that doesn't fit into the
mainstream.
Concerning that quote by Shaw: I believe taking that literally is mistaking a funny quip to make you think for a deeply profound eternal truth. Shaw does not seriously intend to say that e.g. Churchill was not a reasonable man.
I actually own a copy of Kuhn's book. I found it very enlightening. He's not a misfit either.
Shaw does not seriously intend to say that e.g. Churchill
was not a reasonable man.