[bozey07]

I'm Australian and concur that OP sounds full of himself.

Telling self-righteous... friends, to wind their neck in is far more Australian than OP's behaviour.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome

Edit:

To clarify, I have no problem with his style of writing, which is great, but "I am clearly better than most of my competition"? Lord, get a grip.

[torginus]

Not sure about tall-poppy syndrome, but I think it's somewhat justified (this could be argued though) that success most often doesn't look like what we think it should look like.

In most people's minds success should come from a combination of talent and hard work. We think people who work hard and come up with good ideas should become successful. But usually working 'within the system' limits your ability to be succesful. If you save the day at your current job, you might get a 20% raise if you're lucky. If you are mediocre but change jobs often, you will probably beat that.

In software, getting a high paying job usually hinges on your ability to get someone willing to pay you a lot of money.

I'm sure there are people who are getting paid 10x more or less for doing work that is fundamentally the same, just with different presentation.

For example I know a guy who's a mediocre PHP dev, but managed to snag a couple of high paying clients, and got into OE over covid, and brings in a ton of money, despite the fact that somehow he still doesn't seem to be working that hard.

Does he deserve that money? Is he someone we should look up to? I don't wanna say no, but I also don't wanna say yes.

[kelnos]

> We think people who work hard and come up with good ideas should become successful.

I think that's some sort of platonic ideal that hasn't really been all that true for a long time, though. What brings success is coming up with valuable[0] ideas, and then executing well on them. There are many ideas that are good that are unfortunately not so valuable. And there are many people who work hard but just aren't all that talented or effective or productive, and their work ends up not amounting to much.

> Does [someone who doesn't work that hard but has high income] deserve that money? Is he someone we should look up to? I don't wanna say no, but I also don't wanna say yes.

Maybe we should step back and consider that this is the wrong question. "Looking up to" someone is an emotional thing; IMO we should only look up to people for intangible "virtuous" reasons, not because e.g. they've managed to make a bunch of money. Look up to people because they are honest, have integrity, are kind, and help people.

"This guy makes a lot of money despite not working very hard" should be viewed dispassionately. Evaluate the work itself, and the representation and selling of that work. If it's done with integrity, the product of the work is as promised, and no one is harmed, then it may be worth emulating.

I personally think that the social conditioning we've all gotten that suggests that hard work is good and virtuous is garbage, and is an attitude and message that has acted as a tool of oppressors. I hesitate to repeat the "work smarter, not harder" buzz-phrase, but I think there's a lot of truth there.

[0] I don't even necessarily mean "valuable" in the monetary sense, though that too-often is a big driver.

[andrei_says_]

I think he was mentioning winning a specific competition?