[kthejoker2]

First, the actual points are 100% Horatio Alger pap. "Work hard." "Focus." "Be willful."

Second, with only the slightest hint of jaundice, just add "Boy is it easy when you're born rich and well connected to...." in front of these points.

Boy is it easy when you're born rich and well connected to compound yourself!

Boy is it easy when you're born rich and well connected to make it hard to compete with you!

Boy is it easy when you're born rich and well connected to build a network!

Pass.

[aerosmile]

Ok, reasonably well articulated argument, which I think says something along the line of "Sam Altman could have achieved his success more easily if he was born rich." I suppose that could be true, although you're certainly introducing new variables here that could also have unpredictable outcomes. For example, a unique Sam Altman quality is that during his time at YC, he used to send more messages per day than any other partner. He was doing that as a person who went from a middle class upbringing to being worth hundreds of millions. Is it safe to assume that the "other" Sam who was raised with a golden spoon would have been equally ambitious and productive? I honestly don't know and doubt that anyone can say with certainty.

The part that I am not following in your argument is why are we even introducing that variable in the first place. I mean, sure, money, beauty, health, IQ, EQ, and so many other factors are helpful and make everything easier. But why is money so intrinsically linked to Sam Altman's specific path to success? He comes from middle class, and all the money he made came after he was validated in his approach, not before. So why bring it up here? And if you're going to bring up money, why not bring up all the other factors I mentioned above?

[kthejoker2]

Middle class? He went to a private high school and Stanford. He's not one of us.