[djur]

This is a great attitude that you'd think would be more common at a place called "Hacker News". The temptation to get "finance brained" is incredibly powerful in this industry, especially as you get closer to Silicon Valley, and the more young programmers resist it the better off we're going to be. Thanks.

[bitwize]

It's not really about finance brain. It's about where are you, as a smart, talented programmer, going to have an impact? For the past ten years, ALL of the major innovations in the software field have been based on GPGPU. Learning how to program GPUs is thus a core, foundational skill if you want to contribute significantly to the biggest innovations of computing. And of course there's so much else to learn on top of that, particularly in terms of math and algorithmic techniques and stuff.

Messing around with Raspberry Pis is kid shit by comparison. It's fun, but it's not going to advance much of anything. The Raspberry Pi is literally a "get kids into STEM" initiative, and yet it's used mainly by adults who want to cosplay as "makers". And even then, eventually they usually end up in a drawer.

If you want to mess around, Raspberry Pi game consoles are fine but if you want to make a significant contribution, time's a-wastin'. If the rocket takes off and you're not on it, there goes your chance. So yes, set a time limit on the kid shit. Put it away by age 20 or so, and start thinking about what really matters and what's really gonna change things.

[apexedison]

Many people who in retrospect are truly innovative almost definitionally spend their time doing things other people don't regard as valuable (at first at least). As an extreme example of someone who prioritized a life of play look at Claude Shannon. He literally had a shop for building toys at home. I'm grateful he wasn't overly attracted to what others regarded as impactful at the time. That being said I still don't think it's important whether one's play becomes valued. I suspect in the long run we're all better off having people in the world who are passionate about what they are doing.

[criticalmass1]

All of that might be true. All generalizations are sometimes untrue.

> spend their time doing things other people don't regard as valuable...

Sprig is an educational project, shepherded by adults affiliated with big name institutions like MIT and Google. They are extremely conventionally successful smart people who think "nurturing programming talent" is valuable. What are we even talking about? These things don't happen in a vacuum.

[djur]

The idea that a "smart, talented programmer" should reshape their life and their interests around "hav[ing] an impact" and "contributing significantly to the biggest innovations of computing", to have "[their] chance" to get on "the rocket" before it "takes off", this is what I'm referring to. The idea that you're literally wasting your time if not working in certain fields: "machine learning, cryptocurrencies, immersive video games". Why do you assume that "impact" and "innovation" should be the driving interests of a young programmer's life? This is a cultural presumption, if not an ideological position.

[criticalmass1]

> The temptation to get "finance brained"

Trust me, people don't get into programming video games for the money.

Anyway, this is a funny perspective. Zach Latta, the Hack Club founder, got a Thiel Fellowship. I would not characterize Peter Thiel's philanthropy as 100% mission driven. I also don't think he's a supervillian. But there is a finance angle, not a negative one, to even the most seemingly twee retrocomputing things.

Maybe if you saw Hack Club's deck, you would comprehend.

Any talented non-college enrolled young person could also consider a Thiel Fellowship. There are many opportunities out there.

[djur]

Why should the goals of the project funder have any bearing on the goals of participants in the project?