Hacker News Reader

Comment by sillysaurus2 | Hacker News Reader

Maybe it's possible that there are plenty of people out there who care about "ephemera", and yet are also capable of programming a computer or soldering things together? I think it's possible.

Sure, Jobs did. On the other hand, Woz was the tech genius, not Jobs.

I've never heard of a tech genius who also cared much about the qualities you mention. This seems more than a coincidence. If it were, then there'd probably be at least one counterexample. Is there someone who is at the level of Woz or Blackwell who also cares about popularity, beauty, and fitting in?

View on HN

> I've never heard of a tech genius who also cared much about the qualities you mention.

How about von Neumann, famous for always being in an impeccably tailored suit? I hope he's genius enough for you.

You don't even have to go past the very first hackers to find ones that care about those qualities. There are many, many other examples.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Personal_life

> Von Neumann took great care over his clothing, and would always wear formal suits, once riding down the Grand Canyon astride a mule in a three-piece pin-stripe. Mathematician David Hilbert is reported to have asked at von Neumann's 1926 doctoral exam: "Pray, who is the candidate's tailor?" as he had never seen such beautiful evening clothes.

Indeed! This is a great example, thanks.

You should also stop and consider, for just a moment, that if the only stories that can convince you need to be famous, you're working in a very narrow space of human experience.

It's a big world out there, and there are a lot of smart people who will defy your expectations.

Actually, it's not inherently about fame. It has to do with whether the hackers are skilled. Pg goes into why it's difficult to compare hacker skill in one of his essays, though I forget which. But the summary is that nobody knows who the most talented hackers are, because you have to work with them to know how talented they are. Therefore fame is the only metric that makes sense in this case to derive hard evidence. Fame is a proxy for many people having recognized their talent, and the original question was about talent.

Fame is orthogonal to skill.

Wearing a nice suit != being obsessed with popularity, beauty, and fashion.

"Woz was the tech genius, not Jobs....I've never heard of a tech genius who also cared much about the qualities you mention."

I hope you've considered that your worldly experience may not be comprehensive.

I've known plenty of good programmers who care about all the things I mentioned. They just don't self-select with the Linux user groups of the world, so you're unlikely to come upon them if that's where you hang out.

To clarify, I asked for an example, not touted myself as the arbiter of worldly experiences.

I also asked for an example of a programmer on the level of Woz. This is an important distinguishing quality, because otherwise there's no way to know how good a hacker actually is. Every story would be anecdotal instead of resembling factual.

So it's a binary choice between being Richard Stallman and not programming at all? Your worldview is narrow.

By the same token your comment would suggest a binary choice between having a narrow worldview and not acknowledging very real trends (that hackers care less about dress and appearance than other professionals). That's an uncharitable interpretation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com