Another "if i can do it, so can you" story. Fuck that message
, I am never going to be a billionaire and you won't be either. And it isn't for a lack of talent, or effort.
I think Dr. Simon's point is not "if I can do it, so can you", but instead that the things we normally value, quickness in thought (see: whiteboard coding) really aren't the best or only measures of a person. The ability to organize talent in others, for example, or the willingness and curiosity to endless ponder on a question for a very long time, have payoffs. For example, Oppenheimer produced almost no new science after his early career, but his absolute brilliance at running research had an enormous impact on science, probably greater than his research.
For some reason we don't seek out that kind of brain. I don't know why. Is it because they are rare? I don't think they are. I see 'clever' people, and then smart people. The clever people dominate the meetings, make decisions, but often times it is the person brooding over a problem that sees how to better advance efforts. Can't implement a smart pointer off the top of your head, under pressure, in a interview? No hire. (this is something the friggin' C++ committee got wrong, for years, with auto_ptr). I see Ph.Ds chasing stupid ideas that will never be practical. Smart is good, but so is pragmatic, and seeing the 'right' thing to do, and doing that. They are different kinds of intelligence; we need both, but often only shop for the former.
The stupid interview questions about pointers involve just one variable, whereas a multi-variable (and higher order) analysis would consider what your company's business needs are and how software can help achieve them. The truth is, higher-order multi-variable thinking (also known as strategy) is far more critical to success than low level single variable thinking. However, due to the financial structuring of companies, there are very few positions for strategic thinkers.
What it boils down to, is how many times you ask "Why". If you stop at one iteration, you won't get a very optimized solution. But if you keep going until you're questioning the definition of reality, you're at about the right place.
Apparently some folks are motivated to strive towards those statuses. Not quite my cup of tea, but I wouldn't discourage them or say those goals are flatly impossible.
Or do you mean just maybe understand the general essence of the paper's title, and understand major contributions after spending some time reading the paper?
If the former, well... yes. That's probably true for almost all significant research, especially in mathematics.
If the latter, I think you're probably wrong. And that's not to trivialize the work presented in the paper; if anything, the contrary -- the paper's actually quite well-written.
Probably, and this is just a guess, neither Simons or Sullivan claim they could've written the paper alone. And it's certainly impossible to write essentially the same paper without plagiarizing. So probably there are either zero or two people who meet the "could've written this paper" criteria.
So, why didn't you just say "there are more than zero/two billionaires who read HN"? Seems less round-about.
i'm pretty sure at least one or two billionaires read HN, so, keeping in mind the audience, you're probably wrong.
So probabilistically he's right.
OTOH, if more modest acheivements would justify the investment of time and money and winning the Tour de France would be a crowning, but not necessary to justify the effort, acheivement, sure, start cycling...
"Dr. Simons received his doctorate at 23; advanced code breaking for the National Security Agency at 26; led a university math department at 30; won geometry’s top prize at 37; founded Renaissance Technologies, one of the world’s most successful hedge funds, at 44; and began setting up charitable foundations at 56."
But at the same time, I'm always surprised when people claim these sorts of comments are self-defeatist.
Unrealistic expectations can be just as psychologically and socially damaging as viewing the world through a billionaire-or-powerless-prole lens. Witness the periodic comments from founders whose failed start-ups ruin their marriages as well; if anything, unrealistic expectations for one's self can be even more damaging than self-re-enforced feelings of powerlessness.
So it's not that this comment is healthy. It's just that many responses here are almost hilariously as unhealthy. It's like an alcoholic criticizing a chain smoker.
(Okay, so now I'm the most unhealthy, most negative person in the thread :-( )
A sarcastic but true anecdote.