Hacker News Reader

Comment by mapassthebeans | Hacker News Reader

Had similarly unorthodox path to tech, albeit without the drug addiction or prison.

90s early internet/BBS punk rocker/computer nerd. Hated school angry.

Dropped out to work as a bike messenger for 5 years before packing a bag and moving west randomly. Couldn't sit still. Rode freight trains around the country for a few months.

Washed dishes and landscaped to cover my cheap rent till that fell thru. Discovered shop lifting. Covered food and beer stealing from local progressive grocery store chain. Stole goods to sell on CL to cover my rent. That scam went tits up and narrowly escaped serious charges after the head of loss prevention from a regional retailer caught up to me

Was sleeping in the park--this was pre super meth/fentanyl crisis so street living was a bit more stable and low key. Didn't want to wash dishes or dig holes any more so looked around on CL. Found a small company trying to bootstrap a regional office for an established linux-related open source company. Worked for free / interned using a stolen laptop for a year or so while sleeping outside or couch surfing local punk houses.

Eventually got hired on for s but stayed for a couple years and made many FOSS connections. Eventually left to join a well known FOSS-centered company that was fully remote.

Told myself when I was young that I would never work in an office. ~15 years later and I never have ,but now work in bit tech, get paid too much, own a home and have a great family with kids who play at the same parks I used to crash at. We shop (and pay) at the same stores I used to crib from.

I'm respected and tenured at my gig but Imposter syndrome still holds me back. Nobody I work with knows where I came from and thankfully have nothing incriminating that would block a background check

View on HN

You are what I've started to call "34yo Patrice".

34yo Patrice has a stable job, a fiancé and broadly speaking has his life in order.

Nobody in his circle knows he dropped out of high school, got in the wrong crowd and, inevitably, did time.

This archetype is a mix of several people I've met and I usually mention it when a younger person says this and that thing (e.g. dropping out of college) is the end of the world for them. In your 20s it commonly isn't and you can start from scratch - after a decade or so nobody will have any idea about this unless you tell them.

used to work with a dude -- who is probably on / posts here -- who copped serious felony charges for growing and distributing mary jane. some time in the slammer, but nothing crazy.

couple decades later lives in the burbs, wife, kids, regular coding job, etc.

Growing some weed, what a horrible person. Do it now and its respected entrepreneur. Same person, 10 years difference.

Maybe folks should not just take passively morals from society or media but think for themselves? Society has been wrong uncountable amount of time, way more than it has been right.

The 20 yr olds of now and the future will have far less luxury being forgotten than the previous generation I suspect

Looking In retrospect, if you were a policy maker today how would you try to prevent the new generation for having to go through this (today your path likely would not be viable due to fentanyl).

Did he have to? Some of that sounds like choices, especially in the start.

Almost everything is a choice. The difference is that sometimes you're making a rational one and sometimes you only think you're making a rational one and to outsiders and in retrospect it obviously wasn't the best choice, or event a good choice.

There are two aspects to the type of question that was asked. How do you prevent people from ha I g to make choices which are rational and good for their options but still really bad overall, and how do you convinve/educate people about available options they weren't aware of so they don't make outright bad choices when better ones are available that they are unaware of.

There are many possible answers to "why did you take off to the west and ride trains and sleep in parks and steak to feed yourself", but most of them aren't "well I just felt like leaving my entirely stable, loving and supportive friends and family." What to an outsider seems like a poor choice to a specific person imight seem like the decision that saved their life, even in retrospect.

This question jumps past the more fundamental question of whether policymakers, and the government in general, should prevent people from making their own choices.

Education is a very different story which ends with letting people make their own decisions after (hopefully) having more information about realistic outcomes.

I don't personally want a government preventing me from making my own choices. That line is blurry for sure, like if my decision directly negatively impacts someone else for example. But if packing up and riding the rails or sleeping in parks primarily impacts only me, the government shouldn't be able to stop me because they "know" its the wrong choice.

The question was simply how to avoid people falling through the cracks. That was it and while not worded all that well, it was a noble question.

It didn’t need that level of sermon. Every reasonably educated person got your point after the first sentence.

Best way to keep people from falling through the cracks to put them all in prison

> This question jumps past the more fundamental question of whether policymakers, and the government in general, should prevent people from making their own choices.

When your choices include terrorizing businesses and being a public nuisance to everyone else, then yes, government should prevent people from making those choices.

We already have laws for theft and similar crimes. You don't need a government creating more rules preventing entire categories of choices from being made, especially if they already can't enforce the laws on the books.

Well said here.

We don't have a honest discussion about the progression of addiction so the choices are not visible, until later.

The first beer is the most critical choice, yet it's made for us (in 99% of the cases) by our peers. So is it a choice really?

We're routine (addiction) prone herd animals and as long as we pretend otherwise (free will and the likes) we're stuck in repeating this.

Why is the first beer the most critical choice?

Why isn’t the last beer the most critical one, for example?

Without the first beer there is no last beer.

This.

In a healthy society there would be no need for intoxicants with so severe harms (BBC list for substances by harm is a good reference) and thus no exposure for a addictive substance.

Now the norm decides that, almost without exceptions, we must all be exposed.

What’s healthy isn’t complete abstinence, it’s moderation.

This is true of coffee, sugar, alcohol, social gatherings, work, play, and everything else in life.

That is true of some things, but the modern evidence is quite clear on the healthiest amount of alcohol being zero.

You've completely missed the point. People don't drink alcohol because it's healthy. Just like people don't eat cake because it's healthy, nor drink coffee because it's healthy.

They do it because the unhealthy effects are desirable.

Which is why moderation is the key. There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone enjoying a drink. But there is with people who need to drink. And that's just as true for sugar addition and caffeine addition too.

Now I'm not suggesting that the negative effects of all vices are equal, because clearly they're not. But suggesting that total abstinence is the answer completely misses the point of why people enjoy a drink to begin with. You're setting an unreal expectation that will never work with society. Just like telling people that they shouldn't ever eat cake or drink coffee would be an unrealistic demand on society.

We already have a mountain of evidence that prove the removal of said vice without solving the underlying problem only drives people will just switch to something else. Often that "something else" can be much much worse. So it's far better to give people outlets but ensure there is support to ensure they descend into dependence (and the vast majority of people do consume in moderation).

I was only using your own framing. You're the one who lazered in on health.

> What’s healthy isn’t complete abstinence, it’s moderation.

With alcohol this is well established to be false.

https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-...

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h... (Headline: "Drinking alcohol is a health risk regardless of the amount.")

> I was only using your own framing. You're the one who lazered in on health.

Actually no I wasn't. It was shrubby who mentioned "health" in the medical sense. I was replying to them using "health" in the social wellness sense. ie making the point that "health" is a nuanced term and shouldn't be used in an absolute way like they, and yourself now too, have done.

Health isn't just about physicality. There are social and emotional benefits. For example, enjoying a beer, or glass of wine, with my wife on a Friday evening when we rant about work is a great way to unwind for the weekend. It improves our mental health to have that shared experience. Our relationship is closer for spending time together. It has a net benefit despite it being an unhealthy treat.

You could replace the `wine` with `cake` in statement and have a similar point. But I don't personally enjoy cakes. Also take notice of how I'm not telling you that you shouldn't eat cakes because I don't personally like it ;)

> With alcohol this is well established to be false.

Again, you're missing the point. People enjoy stuff that isn't healthy, but sometimes that can still promote other benefits. Such as mental health. "Health" is a broader term than you give credit for.

Also the links you shared do not prove your point. There's no actual data in either of them. It's just pop-science articles with zero substance designed into scaremongering people. For example their arguments that it takes just one drink to become an addict is just laughable. The real statistics they don't print show a very different story where occasional to moderate drinking is not going to significantly increase your risk of cancer nor anything else. You're talking about fractions of a percent in the change of risk -- and that risk was already a low percentage to begin with. This is where understanding how statistics actually work makes a difference ;)

For example, some studies studies only show a correlation in 5% of cancer cases being related to alcohol consumption and that was proven against heavy drinkers. And the percentage of drinkers who have that cancer are < 1%. eg

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...

And a lot of these studies exaggerate what I'd classed as a "light drinker". Take that link I shared:

> Even light drinkers can be at increased risk of some cancers. For example, women who have just one drink per day have a higher risk of breast cancer than those who have less than one drink a week, and risk is increased even more in heavy drinkers and binge drinkers (3-7).

If you're drinking 1 drink per day then you have a dependency. That isn't occasional consumption. I would not class that as demonstrating moderation. If you need to drink every single day then you fall into the category I described in my previous comment when I said there is an underlying problem that needs addressing.

Most people do not drink every day.

---

So to summarize:

- light and occasional drinking is a rounding error of 0 in terms of physical health risk. But it can have much more significant positive effects on mental health.

- understanding the actual statistics and how they work matter if you're going to argue about the risks to health

- people don't become alcoholics from one glass of wine

- if you don't want to drink then I agree nobody should force you. But please don't share bullshit pop-science articles claiming we're all going to become cancer-riddled addicts from an occasional drink just because you don't understand why some people do enjoy the occasional glass of wine. That just demonstrates you don't understand the subject matter.

- and please don't ignore the parallels I made about coffee and cake. They demonstrate the hypocrisy of comments where people claim absence is the only smart choice.

(and no, those bullet points were not AI generated)

edit: sorry for all the crappy grammar. I'm multitasking...badly it seems haha

I'm tempted to start the full deontology and Jellinek model on substance abuse on this, but don't have the effort now.

If we perform a cost benefit analysis on alcohol the downsides are plentiful and then some.

And the pluses are practically masked versions (taste, buzz,...) of the two major things that make human do anything: what others are doing and what I'm used to (which are pretty shit reasons to do anything IMO) it basically boils down to addiction. Not chemical, but functional and social.

Then we return to the cost benefit analysis and start figuring out how far the lying disease has progressed. The fierceness of the debate feels like a good indicator of this usually.

I'd be tempted to explain this more in depth, but I have stuff to do.

I actually don’t disagree with some of that. But that’s not the point I was discussing.

Let me put it another way: banning something that most people use sensibly and enjoy in moderation isn’t a society that anyone wants to live in nor should live in. I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if the government went after something you enjoyed that caused harm to a minority of other people.

Which is why I keep coming back to the cake analogy. The only reason people eat cake is because of the buzz and taste. Which are pretty shit reasons to do anything in your opinion. And people do get addicted to sugary snacks. Some people even eat for comfort. But a lot of other people do have self-control. Should we ban cake for everyone regardless? Of course not!

As I said in my earlier comment, the problem with substance abuse isn’t the alcohol. The alcohol is just a tool. If you banned alcohol today then people who want escapism will switch to something else. And we’ve seen this trend time and time again throughout history. And it's what any experienced doctor of medicine will also tell you.

So if you want to understand the problems of alcohol abuse better, you need to first understand what drove people to abuse alcohol. Banning alcohol isn’t a shortcut to solving that problem -- despite how much you might like it to be.

Also accusing all people who drink, even those who only do so occasionally, as being addicts (as you literally have done) is so far wrong that it’s just insulting.

Banning something that has so huge disadvantages, but has been lobbied just like cigarettes is exactly the kind of society I want to live in.

But the choice is not mine, so in that way I win.

It's a social norm and a poison from my POV and just like pfas or plastic in the drinking water I believe it should be controlled and the lobbying banned. Then we'd see the true wish of humanity.

Now our needs are manufactured, not around our wellbeing, but for what "must" be lobbied and advertised.

The norm is manufactured. Just like the addictive algorithms and almost any other thing in this world of pseudo-free will.

Even the likes of Joe Rogan are bringing up the issue, with many others so I see some light in the tunnel for my society, but so far you're right. Your side seems to be winning.

> Banning something that has so huge disadvantages, but has been lobbied just like cigarettes is exactly the kind of society I want to live in.

Alcohol isn't like cigarettes. It's more like coffee or cake in terms of the social aspect. You clearly have huge prejudice against alcohol as a whole, but you need to understand that the vast majority of people who drink, do not drink like the minority of people you associate with alcohol.

Also, cigarettes haven't been banned. Their sale has just been hugely restricted. Which is also true for alcohol.

> Now our needs are manufactured, not around our wellbeing, but for what "must" be lobbied and advertised.

You're now just reiterating the same point I made elsewhere ;)

> Your side seems to be winning.

It's not a battle to win. It’s about choice and support. You are responsible for making your own choices. But you shouldn't be dictating how others should live their own lives.

The way a healthy society works is you give people opportunities and support, and the freedom for individuals to make their own choices. However what you're advocating is taking those choices away for everyone based on your own personal prejudices of a small few. And that's not a world anyone else wants to live in.

You also keep ignoring my point that the actual subsection of society you have a problem with (alcoholics) are the same subsection of society that needs support first. If you simply take the booze away, then their underlying mental health and addiction will just drive them to switch to different substances. And if you solve their condition first, then alcohol no longer is the problem you protest so strongly against.

Simply put, you really don't understand the thing you have such a strong opinion about. And it's evidenced by the fact that you keep sidestepping the real issues behind alcohol. But you still want to restrict peoples freedoms regardless.

Escape can be done with a lot of things, most of those aren't as harmful as alcohol.

Even in substances there are some with very light harms compared to ethanol, but "this is what we've always been doing".

You're now making a rational argument against an irrational condition.

As I keep saying: the underlying causes behind alcoholism is something that needs to be specifically addressed if you don't want alcoholics to simply switch to something worse.

This is why support groups like Alcoholics Anonymous talk about people's lives and their struggles. They aren't trying to address the access to alcohol, they address the mental state that drove people to abuse alcohol.

This is the key part you keep ignoring. Making alcohol illegal doesn't solve these issues. People will still find a way to get smashed. And there's proof of this in Saudi and Iran where black markets thrive. The proof is also with people in the the EU, UK and US who keep switching from one recreational drug to the next as governments ban new substances in a game of whack-a-mole.

What you're trying to do is treat the symptom, not the cause. And that's why I keep disagreeing with you.

Root cause is the human biases and lying due to cognitive dissonance? And alcohol is a symptom that's easy to grasp.

You’re talking about waterfall management by laws and I’m talking about individual consciousness and the capability of understanding our biases? I guess that explains the perceived differences.

I stated earlier that I really don’t have the resources for this discussion in extent, but I’m leaving a draft for a blog post based on this too. I’ve been creating a matrix of different human habits to perform the cost/benefit calcucaltion. For alcohol and for practically anything individuals do.

I’ll try to sum it up here really quickly and hope for you to provide the pluses, should you have those, for alcohol. You already mentioned with strong emphasis that its normal thus right. And I don’t think either of the “facts” that we’re used to doing something (like smoking, before it was approached with honesty) or because others are doing it (like social media on the predatory and attention wrecking platforms) are good reasons, but I’ll accept that these are pluses to you.

So based on the homo economicus narrative we are rational and will make a rational choice, right? Then this matrix (a quick draft, for reference only, I hope you give me more minuses here than the buzz, the norm and the herd instinct) should work as the guiding light. https://imgur.com/a/NgV6dt9

Then we have the homo ephicus (ethical human with a twist of brutal praxis) that knows that human “mind” is actually an intuition making decisions and strategic reasoning and excuses and post-hoc justifications (thanks Jon Haidt & Hume) we use to lie to ourselves and to our societies.

So with the lingo of THN: normal =! right

human =! reason

human === lying

But sorry, I can’t do this more clearly as the homo economicus world is putting immense pressure on the cog, I’m positioned to be. I’ll keep you in mind should I have the time to make this bit better.

I’ve never argued against the negative psychology of the minority. And understand the how it affects substance dependence. In fact I’ve talked about the psychological effects of addiction many times before on HN and have studied it in detail. Likely more than yourself owing to the fact that I also know there’s a chemical dependence component of alcohol addiction in the worst cases, which you’ve neglected to mention.

But I was never talking about addicts. I was talking about the majority of people who drive. And this is why you keep getting replies from me after your silly strawman arguments that all drinkers are alcoholics who need the government to save them.

The point you keep ignoring is that you’re repeatedly just talking about the minority and them extrapolating that like it’s equivalent to smoking. And that is simply just your own prejudices in action.

Take the cake example I keep making and you keep ignoring. People comfort eat. People get addicted to sugar. People get fat from sugar and cause a huge burden on health services, and cut their own lives short. But you’re not advocating the outright ban of sugar. Why? Because it can be consumed responsibly. And that’s the crux of the matter.

And even if we take your silly pop-science comparison with smoking, the end conclusion is still the same; smoking isn’t illegal either. It’s just heavily regulated )just like alcohol already is). So by your own silly comparison, you’re effectively just arguing for the status quo.

If alcohol was only discovered in 2026, there isn't a country in the world that would legalise it.

It's legal only because it's been grandfathered in, from before legal systems were created.

That’s an impossible to prove opinion without changing the laws of physics. But there are some precedence we can refer to as a counterargument.

1. There have been plenty of other substances that have been banned which were legal and widely taken since before such laws existed. Demonstrating that governments are willing to control substances that were previously legal.

2. There have also been other drugs that have been legalized after they were previously banned. Proving that governments are willing to accept the risk of people taking drugs.

3. And your augment about alcohol specific actually did happen in some places. It is commonly referred to as "prohibition". And that decision never stuck.

The reality is drugs aren't legal nor illegal based on solely the harm they do. They are judged based on how easy they are to regulate (read: monetize and tax) and the subsections of society which enjoy them.

To expand on that last point: there's a reason cannabis was illegal in most countries while cigarettes weren't. And that reason wasn't because cannabis was considered more dangerous than tobacco. It's was because certain leaders wanted us to think that the people who smoked cannabis was more dangerous than the people that smoked cigarettes.

> 3. And your augment about alcohol specific actually did happen in some places. It is commonly referred to as "prohibition". And that decision never stuck.

sticks pretty well in muslim areas.

Not as well as you'd think:

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68085190

> Saudi Arabia to get first alcohol shop in more than 70 years. [...] Saudi officials said the shop would counter "the illicit trade of alcohol".

2. https://www.rferl.org/a/farda-briefing-fatal-alcohol-poisoni...

> Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, alcohol has been strictly banned in Iran, where consuming, producing, or selling alcohol is punishable by prison, floggings, and fines. Despite the official ban, Iranians still drink foreign and homemade alcoholic beverages that are sold on the black market. Over the past year, there has been a spike in the cases of fatal alcohol poisoning, according to medical officials in Iran.

And I'm pretty sure few Europeans nor Americans would want to mimic the laws seen in those Islamic countries. Even putting aside the depressing rise of nationalist parties in the west, Saudi and the US and EU are just culturally very different. So what works there isn't necessarily going to work here.

>In a healthy society there would be no need for intoxicants with so severe harms

Yeah but we don't live in a healthy society. We have more abundance and more advanced healthcare and drugs than ever before, but we are sick in terms of missing social connections and family unit, even in big cities. Hence why mental illnesses and substance abuse are going up.

People don't thrive on GDP line go up and cheap large screen TVs. People need friends, family, and a support network.

Yes. 100 percent agree. The addiction industry requires us to be desperate and wanting an escape, so that they can brainwash us into complicity and brain fog from hangover or doomscrollin.

And the substance abuse is a progressive lying disease so once we figure out "this has gone too far" the threshold for abuse has been crossed a long time ago in most cases.

First the close ones see the problem and the individual in question is the last to see it. Thus a lying disease.

When the train hits you, it isn’t the caboose that kills you.

I don't think humans are so straight forward. We have an instinctive nature to rebel that's not going anywhere, and we're all just so absurdly different, so what works for one person or family, may fail spectacularly for another. My opinion is that all you can do is be honest about things. DARE, for instance, ended up resulting in more kids trying drugs after all was said and done. It relied heavily on exaggeration and misleading statements - a lot like contemporary politics. And once people realized some of what was said was lies, the entire foundation fell apart and it all became seen as a joke.

So for instance I'll happily tell my kids that marijuana is enjoyable and relatively harmless in and of itself, yet you end up smelling bad, it ruins motivation, hurts your short-term memory, gives you the munchies, and is just generally is self-escapism, like most drugs. Gotta work on my exact pitch there, but that's the spirit of the point - honesty. They will make plenty of bad decisions in life, but I'd rather that with each one they see I was right, rather than see that I was lying or exaggerating - driving them further away from everything else I taught them.

> you only think you're making a rational one and to outsiders and in retrospect

In retrospect? It's really not hard to determine before the fact that petty crime is not a road to good things.

We have ways to prevent people from going down this path. It's called enforcement. He was more or less allowed to steal and sleep in the parks. If there was strict enforcement, this wouldn't have been a medium term viable option. Doesn't have to be throw the person in prison for the rest of their life, but either accept help, go through the criminal justice system or figure out another way to contribute to society in a positive way. It sounds like the author at any point could have found some kind of employment, but chose this because it was viable. And society wasn't doing him any favors by looking the other way

Enforcement is right of boom, essentially a safety net for the negative external affects of a person having already made a series of choices that resulted in an enforceable outcome. My impression from the thread is a query to identify the things that can prevent an enforceable outcome in the first place.

While one might say strict enforcement would discourage particular behavior choices. I would not disagree and add that suppression of behaviors is not as effective as replacement of behaviors.

Maybe also worth asking what he's doing along those lines as a father. Probably some interventions are in reach for the state, and there are some other things that parents are best positioned to do. He might have some insight into both.

(Lost my passwd to my throwaway so i had to create another, sorry) Me? I have nothing to offer. My elementary aged kids will be in middle school soon and I am not looking forward to having to try and keep them on the straight and narrow. At home my parents afforded me a long leash and I rejected most of what my superiors at school/etc fed me. As soon I was able, I GTFO. Took many risks and things worked out okay for me in the end. I could tell my kids to do the opposite but I'd be lying and they'd know it.

This is a good and balanced reply. My brother was much more rebellious than me when he was younger. Not as crazy as your first post, but crazy enough for our relatively conservative family. When he got married and had kids later, he is -- to my great surprise -- a very strict, conservative parent. He has his daughters on the straight and narrow path. Sometimes I wonder will they go crazy as soon as they got to uni (move away from home). I saw more than a few crack during my first year of uni, living in dorms. You can probably find some books or blogs that people have written about their own journey as a parent, especially when they had a rocky start in life as an adult.

I am not a parent, but I have observed that the best style of parents adapt to the natural personality of each child. For example, I was very contientious from early childhood (I assume that part was genetic), and my brother was exactly the opposite. My parents really had to work with him to get him to take school seriously. Fortunately, he has a naturally high IQ, so it wasn't so hard for him.

> I saw more than a few crack during my first year of uni, living in dorms. You can probably find some books or blogs that people have written about their own journey as a parent, especially when they had a rocky start in life as an adult.

grew up around the military, ended up enlisting out of HS.

buncha my friends, all army/navy brats from outside of DC, all went off to college. easily 1/3 drank themselves stupid or otherwise went nuts.

off the leash they decided they'd rather be in a band and work part-time at the grocery store than keep going down the path they were forced. Most of them have since graduated and several are doing pretty well. Had to do that freedom thing, tho.

better choice than the one I made, too

> Took many risks and things worked out okay for me in the end. I could tell my kids to do the opposite but I'd be lying and they'd know it.

Why do you think they'd know it? Working out in the end for you was the less likely option. Everything is possible but if you manage to explain the likelihood of each outcome compared to the expected payoff it could make the case clearer. Not an easy thing when dealing with small kids. It's hard because even adults are blinded by survivorship bias. Kids are easy victims, they can all become Cristiano Ronaldo, they can all launch the unicorn startup after dropping out of school, etc.

> I have nothing to offer.

Kids need guidance whether you think they'll take it or not, especially at that age. It's up to you to strike the balance between guidance, trickery, heavy handed rules, something works. Your teachers probably didn't care enough and your parents couldn't find the right button because it's not an easy job but it doesn't mean you can't or worse, that you shouldn't even try because you "have nothing to offer".

> Took many risks and things worked out okay for me in the end. I could tell my kids to do the opposite but I'd be lying and they'd know it.

"Do whatever you want and things will work out because it worked out for me" is not a good (or honest) message for children.

[survivor-bias-airplane.jpg]

I'm not the parent commenter, but I think this is not what they are saying.

This is more of a "Do what you must, come what may" thing.

You can and should teach your kids the ways of life and make them understand that

- the choices are theirs

- responsibility for said choices is also theirs

- results may not reflect choices

(Lost my passwd to my throwaway so i had to create another, sorry)

I dont know if you intended to reply to the OP/author or my reply. In my case, I dodged hard drugs for $reasons and can safely say that I chose my own adventure. I was had anxiety and apprehension about status quo and what was expected of a HS graduate circa 2000 so I said F it and did my own thing.

I guess one can only optimise the system for the majority following the beaten path. Some folks just have to find a way both through the world and through their own head.

> Some folks just have to find a way both through the world and through their own head

You need to stop seeing me so hard rn

i’ve been through all of this, and it turned out fine. seriously people don’t hold a drug bust against you, if you can do the job. i’ve lived on the road, camped in Golden Gate Park, attended several Rainbow Gatherings, etc. after spending years in India as a monk, i couldn’t find a place in american society. i bootstrapped a new identity that let me live as a teacher and developer; but i had to move to Śrī Laṅkā to do it.

> seriously people don’t hold a drug bust against you, if you can do the job.

Seriously, they seriously do. There's always someone as qualified as you applying for whatever job. Why would anyone choose someone with a record over someone without, all else being equal? It's a liability that can turn into a headache, so most employers will choose the person without the record.

True, you can even get a government security clearance. They hold financial debts, gambling history, and dubious associations against you much more.

*Providing the drug use was short lived.

My war story from dot-com times is being asked by a (v well known and then horribly imploded) Bay Area start-up what about its hiring form would need to change for the UK (if I was to run the UK office)... So under the "bad things you've done" section I said to change the exclusion from "minor drug stuff" to "fixed-penalty motoring offences"...

They will hold undisclosed drug busts/use against you.

drug use will definitely be a problem, esp. if it was within the last couple of years.

you're ~35 and admit to smoking a buncha weed and maybe some other stuff in your college frat 10+ years ago? not much of a discussion topic, esp. if you've had a steady job, house, family, etc. since then. doesn't have to be short, you could have been called Mikey Pipes for all 4 years of school... just that it was a phase, and it's been long gone.

smoke weed and pop some lsd 1.5 year ago? that could be a problem, esp. if you're still living the same life essentially as then.

> smoke weed and pop some lsd 1.5 year ago? that could be a problem, esp. if you're still living the same life essentially as then.

Given the huge numbers of bay area tech people at Burningman, its clearly a bit more nuanced than that. Partying with Zuck or Sergey and Larry would be a very positive career move I suspect.

true, but the Zuck doesn't need to hand out US Fed Gov security clearances to make you a rich man

Sweet Jesus. What a hell of a post! You need to turn this into a e-book or a series of blog posts. They would be a big hit on HN.

Was there any bullying at school that kept you away from it? Or boredom? Or just culture ? Grade schools seem all right in the US. Ridiculous amounts of activities/sports right there, teachers are well paid (compared to the rest of the world), the program difficulty seem pretty chill for any kid that learned to read early enough.

(Lost my passwd to my throwaway so i had to create another, sorry)

No, mostly just American 90s suburban boredom and at-home dysfunction.

At around 12/13 my old siblings drug addiction began tearing my house/family apart. The only escape available to me at the time in my town was a nascent, opioid-fueled high school party scene. Other kids might have followed their brothers footsteps but computers and music really interested me. I retreated to my bedroom and dialup modem for the next 5 or so years. I discovered the local BBS scene and (via that) the internet. Likewise, discovered a lively punk music scene in my region. Both connected me to other like minded ppl in my region and beyond. Very thankful for that.

> Grade schools seem all right in the US.

My experience (and impression of others) is that sure, it's incredibly good by certain very basic metrics but that doesn't mean all participants find it desirable or even tolerable. I slogged through it for no reason other than that's just what was expected and I didn't see any realistic alternative but in retrospect I think I would have been better off dropping out and attending a community college (of course I could be wildly wrong about that).

> I slogged through it for no reason other than that's just what was expected and I didn't see any realistic alternative but in retrospect I think I would have been better off dropping out and attending a community college (of course I could be wildly wrong about that)

This is exactly where I zagged. To this day, I still think avoiding college was the best decision I've made in life. Both from the POV of finances and personal growth. I learned so much about the world and life between the ages of ~18-26. I did not own a computer or have internet access during any of it, and neither did most the ppl I knew. Feel very lucky I spent those years YOLO'ing it and not in front of a screen.

I was referring to K-12 there, not beyond. I found that I was much more compatible with the format, environment, and culture of academia and got a lot out of doing a bachelors. I expect I would have been better off omitting the US K-12 experience to the extent possible.

That said I also felt that many of the people I encountered there most likely weren't gaining enough for it to be worth the cost in time, money, and effort. I know some people who went the trade route straight out of highschool and provided that jobs were available it seems to have been a very good choice for most of them.

> Feel very lucky I spent those years YOLO'ing it and not in front of a screen.

Even in a STEM program I only spent a small fraction of study time in front of a screen. That said, the degree was indeed a huge time commitment overall.

I'm a Tradesman Baker (4 year apprenticeship and a 12 month pre-apprenticeship), that about 2 years after being a fully qualified tradesman switched to IT and have been in the industry for about 28 years. I suspect it will be my last porfession

Did you ever bounce around the crackmonkey list? nick and friends seemed to know people with similar backgrounds.

I did not but would not be surprised. Scattered among the survivalist, bomb makers, pedos and neo nazis of the early internet there were some amazing communities. I like to think that I found my ppl back then but maybe those ppl found me and set me on my way. Either way, I'm thankful

Your story also reminded me of the early LUG scene, distributed all over the world. We believed and all we had access to were the dirtiest ratshit computers but hey they could boot Slackware or Debian and maybe if you said the right incantation you could get that 10Mb card you got for free but was still the most valuable part to work with cat5 Ethernet so you could download stuff from a local sunsite mirror so you could join in the future.

That is an absolutely crazy story, I hope you have it written down somewhere besides HN comments lol

(Lost my passwd to my throwaway so i had to create another, sorry)

Nah, just throwaway here. A few tech/work friends know of it, most of my non-tech friends know of my background but most them have crazier stories. And those folks dont really understand what I do for work or how much money I'm making. I'm too much of a dirt bag for the tech world and too much of a yuppie for my old punk friends. Its double-sided imposter syndrome.

I appreciate the stories. To some extent they are inspiring to read.

Impressive story. Here's a slightly off topic question. Are you hiring right now ? :) Foss work sounds fun.

So... going by the story, I guess you never did go to the doctor to get diagnosed for adhd?

(Yeah, armchair doctor and all that. But doesn't make it wrong or at least worth a look.)

Nah, definitely not ADHD. Wrote that quickly from my phone, which is why it's so scatter brained.

Good if you're sure of it.

Fwiw, I didn't mention it because of your writing style at all, I wrote it because you literally said

> Couldn't sit still.

Also, for anyone curious, drug use and being in prison is much more common amongst adhd folk than the general population. A staggering 25% (approximately) of prison population is ADHD [1], far higher than the general population.

1 - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4301200/

And to whoever downvoted me, I've successfully "diagnosed" (read - identified) multiple friends already. NDs often have decent ND-radars.

Same here, I too feel the same. I don't look as if I am neuro divergent but I am slightly and have radar for others and have begun to tell people, "that person is not late or slow in the mind but that person is simply a neuro divergent and needs to be given chance or looked at differently" lot of neuro divergents have been discriminated against in the past. My one professor used to ask me, "Are you on drugs". No I never have. It's just lack of sleep in college days can otherwise make my lucid brain super foggy

Haha, I can relate. I was once straight up asked if I used cocaine by my caretakers when I was 16. I was simply sleep deprived. And needed sleep bad. My neurodivergence mostly manifests as a sleep problem, in terms of it being a clinical issue. In other areas of life they are simply quirks.

To get the whole discussion of “I have seen this behavior before. I know an addict when I see one”. It was embarrassing. And then to hear “you’re 16 and acting out your puberty”.

Adults are silly sometimes when they are convinced of something, and fucking persistent.

I've had a few people tell me that I definitely have ADHD, even an internal medicine doctor and a neuro radiology friend. But I always change the subject.

Let's say they are correct. What would the solution look like from there?

As an example, and this is only 1% of it, but I have had my utilities turned off several times for not paying bills, while having $400k in the bank.

It took the collapse of my marriage for me to finally do something about the rampant ADHD that has been a feature of my life for 40 years, and yes, part of that collapse was when someone from the gas company showed up to turn off the supply unless I paid the bill right now, which of course I could easily do.

It took me five years to actually get to a point of a) having a diagnosis and b) getting medication. Most of that was due to the perverse way this process works in the UK, where to get a diagnosis of executive dysfunction you have to do a ton of personal admin, after which you’ll be handed another todo list in order to be able to get drugs prescribed.

I’m now on a good dose of drugs and I honestly mourn for the decades of my life I could have been feeling how I do now had I known. They don’t make everything better, it’s still an effort to make myself focus on the things I should be focusing on, but once I am focusing on them I’m able to continue doing so, and I no longer find myself having done no work for the last week because I was putting off a ten minute task I didn’t want to do. Despite spending 12 hours a day with a steady stream of amphetamines being released into my blood stream my blood pressure has dropped significantly since starting the drugs because I’m no longer in a constant state of low grade panic at all the things I’m not doing.

Please, go get a diagnosis (or not, maybe they’re all wrong). Talk to whoever you’re referred to about options, decide whether drugs are something you want to try. Give yourself options at least because it is possible to stop playing life on hard mode.

Cognitive behavioral therapy and, if you want to, medication. Studies have confirmed great results when those two are done together.

If you get your utilities shut off due to ADHD, and that is only 1% of it as you claim, your instinctual coping mechanisms obviously aren't enough to prevent a pretty bad impact on your day-to-day life. As you would seek help for acute medical problems from professionals, you should seek help for chronic mental problems from professionals.

> Let's say they are correct. What would the solution look like from there? Personally after being diagnosed at 36, I started taking concerta occasionally. Mostly once a week to deal with all the things I have a tendency to not do otherwise. It's helped a lot.

And I'm saying this as someone who lost circa 120k in work I never invoiced because of ADHD

There’s both medication (which takes a while to get dosage right but can be extremely helpful for some) and also techniques you can use to help compensate.

Theres a pretty heavy "woo" presence on HN with lots of people who think you can just adopt a bunch of unproven metaphysical nonsense practices and magically delete your adhd (and anyone it doesnt work on just isnt trying hard enough). pay them no mind.

Nitpick but,

> without the drug addiction

and

> beer stealing

doesn't compute.

> albeit without the drug addiction or prison.

No disrespect, but this is not at all comparable to the situation described in the article. A few nights sleeping on the streets is much (!) easier when not addicted to substances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com