Ha, burnouts, stress, jobs, efficiency. It's just a ride. | Hacker News Reader

Ha, burnouts, stress, jobs, efficiency. It's just a ride.

tehomet.net

39 pointsmannicken34 comments

This outburst sounds universal and profound, but really has a narrow target audience. It's good for preaching to the choir, but it can only persuade minds that are already on the brink of change.

What's more, the realization that the world is a "ride" should not be the last stop of your growth. It's nice to know that others don't dictate your life, that you have the power to choose your own balance of work, personal, social, and political activity. Once you know that, you still have to choose.

And some of us choose to work a lot, because our projects are aligned with our core values and we want to change the world. Don't mistake our choice of hard work for thoughtless servitude.

There are many people like that on HN, and nobody's trying to kill us.

But how come so many people are talking about burnout and stress of a start-up? It sounds like the allure of money and prestige is keeping startupers at work, sort of like an invisible god or invisible slavemaster that they created in their brain.

But if they could understand that money will be gone, prestige will disappear, their little software they did to "change the world" will soon be gone, would they work that hard? If yes -- great, but then there wouldn't be no stress because an ultimate anaesthesia is coming and it's going to make everything as meaningless as the stuff you build in dreams. If no -- they're trapped, deluded by an illusion that anything we do in this world matters, that it's possible to change the world, that we're even going somewhere as human species. Which is just an illusion as we're all terminally ill and there is no escape.

When you dream, don't you worry about things that happen there as well? And don't you feel sad you didn't take advantage of the fact that it's a dream: that you didn't jump off buildings, fly, shoot from large grenade launchers? Well, life is a similarly shaped dream just a bit sharper and longer and more brightly colored. Just a dream though, nothing matters :)

"Nothing matters" is a recipe for despair, not happiness :)

Sure, money and glory are shallow motivations. Dig deeper, though, and you'll find that people aren't as shallow as they seem - money can be a means to gain freedom, glory a confirmation from fellow humans that your accomplishment has lasting value.

I'm motivated by the satisfaction of doing something well, the "aha!" moments of learning, the knowledge that I am becoming more like the person I want to be. But even these joys are as transient as money and glory. I will die, but maybe, if I get good enough at what I do, I can make a lasting difference that improves the world for current and future people like our ancestors improved it for us. In your face, death!

I don't want to change your mind, merely explaining why I disagree. Our different notions of "the good life" may be rooted in fundamental personality differences, even biology. If some of those stressed out startup people are like you - they should stop and understand themselves. Some of them are like me, and they should push on.

I believe people generally know to do what's best for them. It's when we assume to know what's best for others that we get in trouble.

Finally, people change. Ten years from now, you and I could both flip sides.

I think that taking the ride seriously means working on wrong things for wrong reasons, whatever the "wrong" means with regard to each individual.

It doesn't mean all work and money is bad. However, it suggests that money can't be a top-priority if you intend to work for your core values and change the world. If it is, all you ever get done is moving money from one place to another and nothing ever changes. To change the world, you just stop worrying and go make attempts at it, and then trust that you'll get enough money somewhere to keep your world-changing efforts uninterrupted.

It is my guess that many people on HN have these things much better aligned in their lives than a big proportion of non-HN people. The thought of being trapped in something you don't believe in for the sake of money and possessions probably appears a rather unsettling idea on this forum.

Let's not get too self-congratulatory. I would suspect that a larger-than-average percentage of entrepreneurs and people around the valley (ie. HN members) work as hard as they do not to change the world, but as a form of escapism. That's not a judgement--it's difficult enough to peel the onion of one's own personality let alone others--but just an illustration of how I don't really buy into the idea of "wanting to change the world" (whatever that really means) as being inherently good or well-aligned. As with all things, it depends on the individual and the true state of their mental and social health.

> The thought of being trapped in something you don't believe in for the sake of money and possessions probably appears a rather unsettling idea on this forum.

I'm trapped in something I don't believe in for the sake of living, not possessions. I've been trapped in creating outsourced business applications ever since I started working for money, and I really haven't had any choice in this matter.

I absolutely hate it, and while I see ways out of it, it's really hard taking the jump to something I like, especially since I'm trapped in a country where little value is put on creativity and where little help is offered to startups. My only hope is that I'll be able to create something I like in my spare time and make money off that in spite of me not living in a friendlier environment.

Man, this kind of stuff gets tiresome. It's cliched and devoid of useful advice.

People want money for one of two things:

1) in order to spend it on enjoying life (ie enjoying the roller coaster). Most people cannot check out of their job or not worry about money and still enjoy the roller coaster. You do not get something for nothing in this world. Life is about finding a balance that suits you personally.

or 2) to spend on status posturing. For 2) the problem of status posturing does not go away if you stop worrying about money. Status posturing has afflicted every commune as badly as it afflicts corporate boardrooms.

If you want to right a useful essay, write it about the optimum way to fulfill the innate desire for status, without putting yourself on a status treadmill. That would be worth reading.

Take all that money we spend on weapons and defense each year and, instead, spend it feeding, clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would do many times over -

Meet Mr. Kevin Myers ( http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/wri... ) How would one phrase this advice to Mr. Myers? What specifically would one do to solve the problem that Mr. Myers writes about?

This must be one of the most inappropriate articles on HN. Not that it's wrong or that I disagree with it, but is there anything that goes against the grain of this site's spirit of work hard, work long hours, "change the world" etc.

Against the grain builds character, I don't think it's inappropriate, but rather much needed.

If you think that the people here haven't all heard Hicks then you've got another thing coming. Bill Hicks is almost a prerequisite to growing up at all intelligent, not because he's good - I despise his style of comedy - but because he's quoted so thoroughly that one can't help but be saturated with Hicksisms.

We don't need that. We already subscribe to that. I'm on Hacker News because I think the rat race is bullshit and I want to spend my time doing meaningful things. I'd hope that's why you're here too. Posting something saying that nothing matters and we should all lighten up is going perfectly with the themes of Hacker News, but it's adding nothing of interest save for Hicks fans.

Against the grain would be an article telling us that progress is a crime and that conformity is the key to a healthy society. But I'd hate to see that here, too, because it's equally bullshit.

If that were true, then most of 37signals "getting real" and "do less" style articles wouldn't be relevant here either.

"But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that -- ever notice that?"

Not sure what he is referring to.

A world based on the idea of constant growth and rabid consumerism doesn't look kindly on people who preach the opposite. He could have been referring to any number of people - Ghandi, MLK, (Jefferson's) Jesus etc.

Oh give me a break. All your examples are hugely popular people (except maybe Jefferson's Jesus but Jefferson himself was hugely popular). Millions of people love and support these men then one nut job kills them and you conclude society didn't look kindly on them? Both men had thousands upon thousands of people attend their funerals (I know MLK was 22,000+ and I understand Ghandi had even more)

Ghandi and MLK both have holidays dedicated to them for God's sakes (in their respective countries). They were so beloved that they caused an ENTIRE NATION to change it's beliefs. While Jefferson routinely ranks near the top in lists of greatest Presidents. In fact, the men being named here are almost universally considered men that no one thinks badly of. They're modern day heroes.

To say society doesn't look fondly on them is ridiculous.

But to say society didn't look fondly on them is accurate. Each was a controversial figure in his time, and each was assassinated or executed. Only after they've died have they been accepted as heroes.

Which society? The left loved both Ghandi and MLK. The right not so much. The left ended up winning and wrote the history, so now everyone views them as heroes. In Ghandhi's case at least, I think the right was right ( read http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt or http://www.amazon.com/Thy-Hand-Great-Anarch-1921-1952/dp/020... )

I don't think it's a right/left issue. MLK for example was a Republican who even endorsed Richard Nixon (though in fairness he died before Nixon ever actually took office and his opinion might have changed significanlty after seeing that)

I don't think this was a political issue. I think MLK fought against a very dedicated group of racists but I think institutional racism was something the majority of people were against in MLK's time. Both on the Right and On the Left. The sad truth about society is that evil does appear to win when good men do nothing and I think that's why people have a mis-shapen view of the majority opinion back then.

As for Ghandi he was an extreme leftist. He gave this advice to Britain during WWII...

I want you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child to be slaughtered

To me that's left of even the most extreme leftist in the modern day political arena.

I said left-right, not Republican-Democrat. Left versus right hasn't always matched up with party politics. The Dixiecrats were basically still on the right before 1970.

Leaders and institutions on the right - Buckley, Goldwater, the John Birch Society - were originally against the civil rights movement. Many have since changed their mind, some have not.

Ghandi was indeed an extreme leftist. He is held up by the modern left as a man of vision and ideals, even if they do not agree with all of his positions 100%.

Churchill despised Ghandi.

What's that got to do with the price of butter?

Just saying that not all of the people that many people today think are great, were thought to be great when they were alive.

Always the money thing. Although, yes, in theory I advocate spending money on peace and not war, there's a problem with this concept.

It's a fallacy.

99% of the time, throwing money at a problem will not solve it. The only way to solve a problem is to change the way you approach it.

Yes, so, it really should be: instead of spending billions on weapons, don't spend it on anything.

Something bothers me about Bill Hicks, and I don't think it has anything to do with his material. He was (IMHO) a moderately funny comedian who eventually fell off the deep end. The problem I've found is that he was more a mouthpiece for his era, and now is being quoted without that context (by, uh... random people on the internet).

I like taking it easy and enjoying life as much as anyone and posting this (mostly inflammatory) quote probably wouldn't have changed my mind anyway. So don't be an internet douchebag and quote Bill Hicks.

To say he was from another era underestimates just how relevant his words still are, and why he is persistently quoted. I love his stand-up, but I also find it so profoundly depressing. I can't help but to think how sad he would be today if he could see how little things have changed.

>"Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, into a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defense each year and, instead, spend it feeding, clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would do many times over -- not one human being excluded -- and we can explore space together, both inner and outer, forever. In peace."

How facile, saccharine, and trite. "Just stop making weapons and we'll have world peace" - it's so brilliant, why hasn't anyone thought of it before? You people act like he was the first one to ever eat mushrooms.

Dude, you're just one of those who has bought the lie and you're trying to hold the rest of us down.

He had me until the last paragraph.

That last paragraph is a beautiful contrast to Bill Hicks' usual approach. Shows deep down that he's a nice guy that just uses bile to make his points.

I miss Bill. :(

If life is just one big game and doesn't matter, who cares if we spend money on guns and war instead of food and education? Why does it matter? Why does anything matter?

He isn't talking about 'life' per se, but more about culture, civilization, economy, and all the other bs we created and confuse with life.

Agreed. He's definitely not saying that life is meaningless, but that we accepted the status quo as the only way life can be lived and that we lose so much because of that.

Timeless classic. One possible answer: because that sometimes, in some way can be fun, too.

Probably the best thing posted to Hacker News so far. RIP Bill.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com