[darkengine]

I know it's bad form to move so quickly into meta-discussion on here, but I feel a lot of the comments in the thread right now are endemic of a certain closed-mindedness that has, to me, come to define in part the Hacker News zeitgeist, which stands in something of a contrast to the site's supposed founding principle of intellectual curiosity.

There is plenty of prior art in Western (and other traditions of) philosophy in the spirit of this essay. Nietzsche and Bataille talked about work in a similar way. Cioran pretty explicitly embraced failure (or the risk of failure) as virtue, as this work does. This essay seems to be saying something like: take a big risk, quite possibly fail, live your principles even if it means being an "outcast", commit to it, and who cares what other people think, because in doing so you will find your people. The response in here seems to be "look at this guy taking big risks and failing, what an outcast." Of course, that is surely the point.

I have, as I'm sure many on here have, found success in grinding away at boring problems, suppressing any kind of "call of God" or desire to do something larger, so we could build a nest egg and stable future for ourselves with MAGMA money. This essay is sort of a direct assault on the aesthetics of that approach. As for me, I have grown quite tired of it, so this piece does resonate with me.

[TapWaterBandit]

It is fairly easy to understand the hostile reaction to this.

This guy did exactly what he said and something many, if not most, of the people who comment on HN would have the means to do (take some time off, live frugally on savings, attempt something he had passion for). His success was by no means guaranteed but he had the guts to take the risk and make it work. And as he said if worse comes to worst, he can always go back to his old career/job (which is likely true of everyone here).

Most people are not risk-takers and are mainly status-seekers. They live their lives in ways to reflect this and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But there is always the niggling feeling for many (I am one) that while I may be making the "smart" choice the real reason I don't do something like this is that I am afraid. I don't like having that pointed out, and so react with hostility.

This isn't to say the path taken by this author is for everyone (especially those with dependents etc), but for many it grates that it would be something they could easily do if only they had the guts. It is also quite telling to see how many of the biggest successes of Tech did something similar to what this guy is saying (Elon Musk as mentioned, Jeff Bezos quitting his finance job, Mark Zuckerberg dropping out of Harvard, Sergey Brin/Larry Page abandoned their PHDs, etc).

TL;DR: People don't like being told that their "smart" life choices are as much made out of fear of failure and status-seeking as from calibrated decision-making.

P.S. To anyone reading, none of the above is a personal attack on you or your circumstances. Everyone is different, everyone's story is different, everyone's circumstances are different. But this is still a valuable piece imo as there are plenty of us out there who could quite easily do what is mentioned and probably benefit from the experience but don't due to fear or just following a comfortable groove.

[glimshe]

There is a lot of goodness in this article. I can see why many people don't enjoy the style, but its essence is inspiring and positive.

You don't need to risk bankruptcy to follow the article's main idea, which is to try to use your available resources to invest in high risk, ambitious projects. Criticizing the article as speaking of "privilege" misses the point entirely - this is starting from the assumption that you are able, through networking, excess savings from previous jobs, family connections, etc, to amass the resources for this kind of investment.

Most people in this "privileged", or well deserved, position DO NOT invest their lives and talent in these big projects. Instead, they increase consumption and get tied to over-insured, materially comfortable lifestyles. And I'm not talking about the ultra rich here, but simply the top 20% in disposable income of the developed world. Tens of millions of people could use the article's ideas to better themselves and the world around them by spending a part of their life invested in high risk, high potential benefit projects.

The author sees their magazine as one such project. Maybe they are right... Who knows? I think the world is a tiny bit of a better place because they are trying to do it.

What about those who can't afford to do this? I don't think the article is for them (yet!), and that's okay. From time to time I see articles here about web development, these don't do anything for me because I'm not a web developer. Not every idea needs to benefit every person.

[alex504]

I agree with everything you are saying. I'd like to share my perspective.

I quit my job for about 2 years, thinking I would never go back to full time. It was extremely liberating but also a somewhat scary experience. The reason for this is I think delusional thinking unfortunately plays a big part in what happens to people who stop working for long periods of time.

There are many, many people in my experience who stop working at some point, have nonwork become a big part of who they are, and never go back. They realize their current mode of work and life are making them miserable, so they throw out work complety instead of finding something more balanced.

I've met probably a dozen people like this and most if not all of them are in a deep state of laziness that is probably also a certain category of depressipn. Its quite sad when they realize they are 50, have no money, no way of making money, and no family because they couldn't afford one.

The author to me seems like a very delusional person. I hope I'm wrong but it just comes off as very naive. Is this magazine going to somehow change the world? How is he going to make money? How long has he not been working? How much savings has he lost in opportunity cost?

There is nothing more liberating than not working and convincing yourself that you don't need to work. For every 1000 people who think they are going to do this about 1 succeeds, and 100 manage to support themselves by living cheaply, contributing nothing to society, and mooching off of their relative, friends, and social safety nets.

I should also say I think taking time off, even long periods of time, is one of the best things that people who can afford to can do. It changed my life. I just wanted to point out there is a dark side to this, that a lot of people fall prey to. I could be reading too much into the article but I thought I'd give my perspective as I've thought a lot about this.

[jart]

Not working a job simply reveals your inner character. When you work a job, you're an instrument of the will of your bosses. When you don't work a job, you're free to have a will of your own. So what you choose to do reflects completely on you. Sadly due to oppressive hierarchies many people have needed to exist in environments where willfulness is punished. Since all their past experiences acting of their own volition resulted in punishment, many people become afraid to do things, once there's no longer anyone responsible for telling them what to do. That makes it difficult for the person's inner creativity and independent motivation to emerge. There's nothing delusional about that. It's just a sign of how unfairly people in our society have been victimized. If you want to help such people, then rather than telling them to get a job, you may want to consider helping them to conquer their fears.

[alex504]

There are many people who have conquered their fears, and are simply bad at whatever they are trying to do. Either that or they aren't really trying to do anything except enjoy themselves, and they don't care / are oblivious to the fact that their lifestyle is a net drain on society that will eventually land them in a very bad spot.

[bawolff]

> Is this magazine going to somehow change the world?

Maybe?

Its impossible to know what will change the world. If i had to guess, probably not significantly, but every action does a little bit.

Nonetheless, there's something admirable about making the earnest effort, even if it fails. We only have one life to live after all.

[maxduckworth]

How do you think about the risk of turning into one of those non-work people but also valuing long periods of not working?

When you initially quit, were you thinking you'd find a new position that you were passionate about and then it didn't materialize, forcing you to go back to your previous life?

[alex504]

When I initially quit, I thought I was going to do something similar to what the author here was trying to do, after taking a couple of years off. I had some fantasy of being an artist. I don't believe the notion that there is a position in tech that I would be passionate enough about that I would really care all that much, but I work remotely for about 5-6 hours a day now and have plenty of time to do the things that I care about.

My perspective now is that there are two ends of the work/life balance spectrum you should avoid. The first is not working at all, or working as little as possible. This would include doing something far below what you are capable of like working at a grocery store just because there is no stress and you can manage to get by on that type of income. Lots of people fall into a lifestyle where they realize they don't want to be materialistic, so they never get a career going, and then they pay serious consequences as they get older and have no money or freedom.

The other end of the spectrum to avoid is materialism. Measuring your self worth in status, or seeking status, especially through money, is a challenging thing to avoid at least in the US. Being close minded and materialistic, in my opinion, is robbing yourself of experiencing life in the way it can be experienced, because it makes it hard to build good relationships or empathize with people. Materialism is a huge huge issue in our society and it is something that too many people who start making lots of money take for granted, and this is ultimately rooted in fear and insecurity.

I think I was pushed down the path of materialism by default. I was an insecure twentysomething who was working hard at something that didn't make me happy, and everyone was telling me how well I was doing and to keep at it. The more I made it a part of me the more unhappy I became until I eventually quit.

When I quit and started hanging out with people who had also quit (or never started) I felt like a weight had been lifted off of me and that I was now living the dream. Eventually I realized how lucky I had been to have the career I had, and backed off of the path I was on by starting to work again, but with a much better sense of balance and perspective.

[mstipetic]

So you’re saying that everybody that makes money contributes to society?

[alex504]

Definitely not saying that. I would also argue that I am contributing less than a majority of my non tech friends, who all make less than me aside from a couple of doctors.

[yakshaving_jgt]

How would that not be true?

[mstipetic]

Lobbyist lobbying to make submitting taxes difficult is a net positive?

[yakshaving_jgt]

You have changed your argument.

First you challenged the idea that everyone who earns money contributes to society.

Then you changed your argument to challenge the idea that everyone who earns money is a net positive to society.

Those two things are not the same, and moving the goalposts in this way is intellectually dishonest.

A lobbyist contributes to society insofar as that they spend their money in their local community on food and shelter, and in most cases also pay taxes. Whether or not every earner is a net positive to society was not my argument.

[mlatu]

a game that my parents like to play: never have i ever: - owned an emerald mine. - been born to one of the largest landowners in Texas. - looked on as my child swindled their friends out of a project to get rich quick and kept looking when their business model became a danger to democracy.

i dont think musk, bezos or zuck are good benchmarks for people taking risks.

i imagine them having about as much anxiety about which project next to fund as i have choosing socks. the striped ones that go over the knees but slip a little and have to be tugged upwards every now and then, or the short cute kitty socks that are a bit cold though?

[sidlls]

Asserting most people choose the "smart" path as much out of fear of failure as by making a calibrated decision seems more like projection than observation.

[maxduckworth]

Why do you say that?

[sidlls]

The GP wrote, "But there is always the niggling feeling for many (I am one) that while I may be making the "smart" choice the real reason I don't do something like this is that I am afraid."

He or she seems to be projecting rather than observing. That is: it might apply to them, but there's nothing in the GP's comment supporting a more general applicability.

[blindmute]

The human experience as shown through art for thousands of years?

[NoLinkToMe]

> Most people are not risk-takers and are mainly status-seekers. They live their lives in ways to reflect this and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But there is always the niggling feeling for many (I am one) that while I may be making the "smart" choice the real reason I don't do something like this is that I am afraid.

This very much resonates with me. I've built up healthy bit of equity (few hundred thousand), earn double the average wage, and own my own home (mortgaged), I'm still young and have no kids. I really do hold all the cards to take more risks, but I don't. And I very much feel like a status-seeker, not in the social media popularity contest sense, but in the sense that I don't want other people to see me as a failure. That makes the status of a senior job at a big firm, living in an own house in the capital city something to be afraid of losing.

It also resonates with me that trying to iterate on my quality of life, e.g. finding a bigger purpose, passions etc, probably isn't going to happen while working the job that I do. It consumes much of my week and energy, and I find I have little energy or interest to seriously pursue 'big thoughts'. I still enjoy my life quite a bit, but it feels pretty mundane.

So I can very much imagine that quitting my job would be the only realistic path to a different life.

I'm not at all hostile to these ideas, in fact I support them. And I'd gladly read about them in a succinct article. Yet I found the writer to come across as overly intellectual, self aggrandizing, and at times downright weird and full of nonsense.

Here's a direct quote from the article, I'm sure that it speaks to something and to someone, and I'm sure I can find meaning in the analogies and examples, but it's not the type of writing I appreciate:

> Yes, even the bane of Darwin’s faith—the humble ichneumon wasp that lays its maggots inside the living bodies of caterpillars to eat them from the inside and burst out on maturity like some alien xenomorph—is a beautiful creature with a sacred task. Like many parasites, its role in the great chain of being is to test the health and defenses of its caterpillar host population. Its predation weeds out the sickly, preventing the much uglier injustice of collective weakness and disease, and spurring the evolution of stronger and even more beautiful life. Even fearsome Nemesis, born from chaos via night and darkness, is ultimately the hand of God and the minister of justice. Even the supposed exceptions to justice prove its rule.

There's seven references to God, for example. I'm not just interested in this type of writing style or type of magazine. I think that's what most people trip over, not the basic message, nor half of the philosophising surrounding it.

[tejasvi88]

The quote resonated with me so well that I decided to read the article. It is telling that individual failures do not make _risk_ undesirable if it strengthens the community as a whole. OP is not communicating information but emotion which is _much_ harder task with language defined by the common denominator and for me as a reader, he is quite skilled at it.

[root_axis]

Your post is interesting but I think you're looking too deeply into it. The pushback in this thread is almost entirely a reaction to the self-assured and self-aggrandizing tone taken by the author. I think on a software startup forum we can all appreciate the tension between the stability of a large consistent salary and the fear/risks associated with striking it out on your own, but the lack of humility and self-awareness in the article just rubs people the wrong way.

[srcreigh]

The writing is a piece of philosophy discussing topics of such importance as the meaning of life. If you don't want to look deeply into it, it's not written for you. In which case, the lack of... Nevermind. Have a nice day :)

[lhorie]

If we're going to talk about polarization, it behooves us to bring up that this isn't a either-or topic: you could take risks and succeed, avoid risks and stagnate, but also take risks and fail as well as avoid risks and succeed.

If we're really going meta, it might also be appropriate to think about our tendency to attribute causation to simple inputs (i.e. either X or Y), when in reality, there may have been a mix of multiple things.

For example, the author attributes the existence of the palladium site to be a result of interest in governance, but wouldn't his background in engineering (instead of, say, rice farming) also logically have something to do with the physical manifestation of a website?

The idea that I think should be questioned is the one about "hacking life" in the sense of going all in on a single thing. In investment, that's called diversification. In nutrition, it's called a balanced diet. But for some reason, in some endeavors, moderation gets shunned (work hours in startups come to mind)

[chii]

> as well as avoid risks and succeed.

that's just pure luck, and i think a lot of people would imagine this is called "undeserved success".

[sidlls]

"Pure luck" is the source of almost every success story. The embellishments and particular details are often told quite well to cloud this.

[lhorie]

Just doing your well-paid job until a comfy retirement, taking regular vacations throughout the years and overall just having a normal boring happy life also falls under this umbrella.

[ravenstine]

It's HN comment sections this one that make me really sad.

Like, there's nothing actually wrong with anything the author said or did, but a lot of what I'm reading here is just snark. I can even tell just how little of it many of us actually read, seeing as how he's admitting to privilege yet some know-it-alls still need to point out privilege as if that invalidates the whole thing. You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't, which is why the whole issue of privilege is a bullshit waste of time.

[someguydave]

it’s a famously bad idea to read hn/reddit comments

[mlboss]

Not HN comments! Comments here are of very high quality. Even more than the articles linked.

[dpweb]

Post-PayPal Musk or for instance a big movie star risking every dollar of their life savings in a venture is different than the worker who has saved up their stake over 30 years.

2000’s Musk from his Paypal reputation can easily get a very lucrative job if things go completely to zero. Current day Musk can make six or seven figures just by sending a couple tweets. The movie star with nothing other than their name land a job or six or seven figure deal. They’re never really risking it all.

[glitchc]

I dunno. Movie stars are always just a couple of flops away from becoming a has-been. There’s plenty of stories of stars branching out, even financing their own films, to have them crash and burn, and take their careers down with the dud movies.

Musk was notorious for being fired from multiple jobs before he did his own thing. If he lost his wealth suddenly over a few bad bets, I doubt anyone would want to hire him. Why would they? He’s unlikely to listen, to do things their way and they know that. That makes him unemployable.

[Jensson]

Nobody risks it all unless they bet their life, everyone can go back making salary doing basic work. For example, if a software engineer risks their life savings on a project and they lose all of that money, they can still go back and make $300k a year just doing basic work, that is hardly "risking their all" either.

[sdze]

Where the hell do you earn 300k per year? In Europe most certainly it this is not possible. Also don't forget life style creep and risk of loss of social circles.

[boring_twenties]

In the US 300k is table stakes for a developer with any experience at a profitable company, certain markets will pay way more.

[cipheredStones]

This is much easier to achieve at big tech companies in the US than you think. Look at levels.fyi and you'll see many examples of people with only a few years of experience making $300k. I personally know many people making that much three years after graduating from a coding bootcamp, and a few people who make $450k-$550k after only a couple more years than that.

[mlatu]

To me this piece talks to people who have at least a years income in their bank account and thus don't have to worry about failing. even dont have to fret much about getting a new job.

worse, they are basically saying that, if you are not one of them (who has a nice thick buffer of money in their account or other assets generating income), shut up, sit down, you dont get to have ideas, get back to work your tickets are late... what? no, sorry, i dont make the rules and i dont have the money to get a ladder long enough to change them.

[voidhorse]

I don’t have any skin in this game, but you have my praise for finding a way to mention three of the greatest philosophers in a single post.

[bawolff]

Of course, the opposite is also true - many of the pro side see this article as the road not travelled, and are lamenting not following a romantic vision of what could have been, without thinking too hard about what it might cost.

[VeninVidiaVicii]

> I have, as I'm sure many on here have, found success in grinding away at boring problems, suppressing any kind of "call of God" or desire to do something larger.

What a profound statement. This is the sentiment of a generation of tamed hackers.

[arbitrary_name]

Ugh. "See how many of our flock stray from the path, wasting their gift! They must only do the work of the righteous!"

'hackers' don't need you looking down your nose at them, o righteous one.

[going_ham]

If it does, you will be extremely delighted knowing there is a book by Marcus Aurelius called Meditations. The book withstood the test of time. He has written it clearly and explained his reasons in a proper manner. He was a roman ruler and everything is from that perspective. Most of the people here are probably not making enough money to get by the everyday mundanes of life. So things like self-actualization are far away from reach. Therefore, when someone drops in an article like this, saying to quit job, isn't it disrespectful for those trying to get their needs? Sure, if everyone had a comfort cushion, I guess internet would be a better place. But the reality is quite harsh! Therefore, people may say harsh things but they don't mean it. It's just to get by.

I hope this isn't offending!

[thelettere]

The notion that one has to take care of one's "needs" before pursuing anything "higher" is a lie and an excuse. The number of great intellectuals and writers who lived at least a portion of their lives - and often more - in absolute penury is testament to this. Einstein for example nearly died of starvation, yet he kept working.

One could make an argument that it is because of real world difficulties that one is able to do great work. What did Jesus say about the rich man and the kingdom of heaven? The times in my life when I've lived on the edges are the ones that have laid the groundwork for everything worthwhile I've done in my life. Success and comfort too often bring stupor and cowardice, and not worthy ambition.

[throwawayboise]

Those people are the exceptions.

The vast majority of people, if hungry, will have their next meal as their highest priority.

[thelettere]

How will you know which one you are - or which one you could become - if you don't try it?

Although the very idea of "trying it" like one tries on a pair of pants is absurd. Either a people has the moral fortitude to recognize and live that there are things more important than mere survival or it doesn't.

And if it doesn't, ironically we're already fucked.

[lhorie]

Worth pointing out that Starbucks and restaurants around Hollywood are staffed by actor-wannabes hoping for a big break in the movie industry, many of whom never end up amounting to anything. On another corner of the spectrum, you get Paris Hilton, who frankly doesn't have to put effort into anything she tries.

Point being, depending on who "you" are and what "it" is, the advice of "why don't you just go for it, everything else be damned" may or may not be callous/tone deaf/etc.

[burntoutfire]

Maybe being a waitress is not the worst thing in the world? Billions of people can only dream of being a waiter/waitress in LA, and the lifestyle that goes with it.

[3maj]

Shoutout to the Slavic Homie Nikola Tesla, was one of the greatest inventors of all time but died in poverty.

[honkycat]

> Einstein for example nearly died of starvation, yet he kept working.

Citation needed. I'm unable to find any sources that back this up.

Einstein was known as a mathematical GENIUS far beyond his years, even as a young person.

[twelvechairs]

Einstein is, in fact, a counter example. He was working at the patent office as a 'technical examiner' for seven years, including throughout his 'annus mirabilis' when he released his most famous papers.

[thelettere]

Mentioned here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7935078/

[darkengine]

Not offended at all. I do see some Meditations showing through here. There is a lot of wisdom to be found in that work, and plenty of parallels to be drawn to the modern world -- Aurelius was, after all, dealing with the Antonine Plague just before dawn in the decline of the Roman Empire.

My biggest issue with Stoicism is that it is, at its best, basically therapy. Most of the advice in Meditations revolves around putting things into various perspectives that make a challenging situation not feel so bad. This can be quite valuable! However I think there's only so much therapy a person can do before they want to start actively changing their situation. I think the essay wants to go beyond Stoicism, to illustrate a radical path one can take to hopefully alter the circumstance of their existence positively.

I have absolutely no qualms with anyone who takes the "boring" path to provide for themselves or their family (to say otherwise would make me a hypocrite). However I think we tend to vastly overestimate what our needs are. The average yearly median in the US in 2019 was $35,977 according to the Census. This is the median, so 50% of the population lives on less than that! Probably most of the people at that wage want to make more (don't we all?) but I think the author is making the case for giving up on the luxury of tech pay in exchange for finding some actual purpose in our lives. I don't think that's disrespectful, it's just another option.

[themacguffinman]

Isn't this one of the most common criticisms of the US: that its median/common income is miserably low? That's why there's so much polemic about a "living wage" and "debt crisis" in US politics. You're assuming that the low median income of <$35k is enough and that's why "provide for themselves and family" is a low bar, but actually a lot of Americans don't think it's enough.

[tonyedgecombe]

It doesn't matter how much money people have, they never think it's enough.

[pirate787]

Bit of a nitpick, that's the per capita median, the US household median income in 2019 was $69,560 which is more reflective of what it takes to maintain a typical US family lifestyle.

[nefitty]

Your assumption about the demographics of HN is counter to everything I've seen. Most of these people do have money. Simply by virtue of being professionals in the US, they are part of the 1%.

If someone was really inclined, $20k USD would pay for a year's rent in a comfortable apartment. $20k for other expenses. A year of grinding is open to a lot of people here I bet. They just don't want to do it.

The fear is too large, the inertia of normie life too great.

[leetcrew]

> Simply by virtue of being professionals in the US, they are part of the 1%.

most white collar professionals, SWEs included, are not even close to being in the 1%. the 1% income bucket for the whole country starts around $350k, so roughly an L5 at google.

[dragonwriter]

I think the grandparent is referring to US professionals tending to be in the global 1%, not the US local 1%.

[wyre]

The global 1% cutoff is around $35,000, which is ironically very close to the median income in the US.

[nefitty]

Yes, that is what I meant. I could have clarified.

[sanedigital]

You need to add another $20K for taxes. And potentially another $10K for health insurance, depending on location. At $70K/yr you’re well into the top tercile in the US.

[coldtea]

>You need to add another $20K for taxes.

If you have the $40k for the year saved, you don't pay taxes for them again when you use it to spend the year not working, etc.

[sanedigital]

Fair, I may have misunderstood GP's comment. I was under the impression they meant $40K in take-home income.

[hattmall]

If you only make $40k a year you aren't going to be paying very much in taxes at all. You also want be paying very much for healthcare as it will be subsidized by the ACA.

[nobody9999]

>If you only make $40k a year you aren't going to be paying very much in taxes at all. You also want be paying very much for healthcare as it will be subsidized by the ACA.

ACA subsidies (at least in NY) are in the form of tax credits. If you don't have any (or not enough to pay taxes on) income, those tax credits are useless.

If you have no (or very low) income, the state will instead put you on Medicaid. Which has mostly terrible healthcare providers.

As such, if you go the "quit my job and go my own way" route, expect to pay USD$600-1000/month (for an individual, families will be much, much more) for decent health insurance or deal with the huge pile of crap that is Medicaid.

If you're young, single and healthy, perhaps that won't matter to you. If you're not, that could be a big problem.

[valleyer]

In fact, the ACA tax credit is refundable; that is, if you owe no taxes, the government pays you.

[sanedigital]

If you're self-employed your FICA rate basically doubles. Depending on your state, that means your tax burden at $40K could be ~$9-12K. Even with a subsidy you're looking at another $2-3K for health insurance. That makes your take-home less than $30K, 25% less than what GP proposed was sufficient income for basic comfort.

[nefitty]

Except for severe chronic health issues, healthcare can probably be handled by walk-in clinics for a year. Those are generally $100-$200 per visit. Medication costs can be lowered with services like GoodRX, which I think even has a trial month for even lower costs.

With taxes, wouldn't you be able to defer them? Just track what you owe or whatever. It might be different in other places because in Nevada we only pay sales tax.