[HN Gopher] 99 Bits of Unsolicited Advice
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       99 Bits of Unsolicited Advice
        
       Author : jcs87
       Score  : 104 points
       Date   : 2021-04-26 18:26 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (kk.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (kk.org)
        
       | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
       | > Money is overrated. Truly new things rarely need an abundance
       | of money. If that was so, billionaires would have a monopoly on
       | inventing new things, and they don't. Instead almost all
       | breakthroughs are made by those who lack money, because they are
       | forced to rely on their passion, persistence and ingenuity to
       | figure out new ways. Being poor is an advantage in innovation.
       | 
       | Completely disagree. A lot of the great innovations actually came
       | from people who were already wealthy enough that they could spend
       | time contemplating instead of figuring out where their next meal
       | was coming from.
        
       | bena wrote:
       | The one I really don't like is "Always say less than necessary."
       | 
       | I've never seen any good come from withholding necessary
       | information.
        
         | vageli wrote:
         | > The one I really don't like is "Always say less than
         | necessary."
         | 
         | > I've never seen any good come from withholding necessary
         | information.
         | 
         | Surely being selective with information is advantageous in
         | negotiations?
        
       | swyx wrote:
       | this one really stuck with me: "The foundation of maturity: Just
       | because it's not your fault doesn't mean it's not your
       | responsibility."
       | 
       | heck. that's just true. really put into words something i've
       | taken a while to learn (and am still learning).
        
       | pachico wrote:
       | Well, there's an interesting amount of proof that Mother Teresa
       | could indeed make a lot of art, really tons of art, it seems...
        
       | dredmorbius wrote:
       | Of fasteners: know the reverse-threading exceptions as well.
       | 
       | https://www.liveabout.com/what-is-a-reverse-threaded-bolt-28...
        
       | Baeocystin wrote:
       | Unsolicited advice? Fair enough. Unsolicited comment- the ones
       | related to money are spoken like someone who has never actually
       | been poor, and are, frankly, insulting.
       | 
       | Even a cursory look at who has developed what over the years
       | shows that people who actually had the resources to do whatever
       | it was that interested them are the ones in the history books.
       | Who knows how many others of equal or greater talent spent their
       | whole lives scraping by instead.
        
         | coldtea wrote:
         | > _Even a cursory look at who has developed what over the years
         | shows that people who actually had the resources to do whatever
         | it was that interested them are the ones in the history books._
         | 
         | In areas like startups, where family connections, early
         | education, family environment, and fallbacks, matter, yes.
         | 
         | But the 20th century was full of people from poor backgrounds
         | (includings immigrants arriving with 0 dollars) making it in
         | e.g. arts. So much so, that the "starving artist" is a cliche.
         | 
         | (And of course, starting and succesfully running regular
         | businesses - the 99% of businesses kind, from grocery stores
         | and restaurants to design studios and software houses, not the
         | 0.0001% that is VC-backed startups sold for b/millions).
        
         | SaltyBackendGuy wrote:
         | > Advice like these are not laws. They are like hats. If one
         | doesn't fit, try another.
         | 
         | Lists like these are full of survivor bias. In fact, it's baked
         | into it.
        
           | coldtea wrote:
           | On the other hand, survivor bias, when it's not about "to
           | make it big, start as a millionaire heir" can also be another
           | name for "worked for me, so there's at least a single living
           | proof that it can work".
        
           | nine_k wrote:
           | The entire concept of evolution is built on survivor bias.
        
             | uoaei wrote:
             | I'm not sure what you meant by this but it comes across as
             | a quip attempting to be witty and piercing but completely
             | missing the point.
        
         | shanecleveland wrote:
         | I can't disagree with your point that resources and opportunity
         | beget more resources and more opportunity. I don't think that
         | is the only path to success.
         | 
         | I also see advice in here that implies he tried and failed at
         | many things, and perhaps was most successful when not focused
         | so much on money:
         | 
         | * A multitude of bad ideas is necessary for one good idea.
         | 
         | * Most overnight successes -- in fact any significant successes
         | -- take at least 5 years. Budget your life accordingly.
         | 
         | * Don't create things to make money; make money so you can
         | create things. The reward for good work is more work.
        
       | elric wrote:
       | > When playing Monopoly, spend all you have to buy, barter, or
       | trade for the Orange properties. Don't bother with Utilities.
       | 
       | This one struck me as being particularly random, even in a list
       | of pretty random items. Can anyone with Monopoly mojo expand on
       | this?
        
         | compiler-guy wrote:
         | https://monopoly.fandom.com/wiki/Orange_Color_Group_Properti...
         | 
         | Statistically, the Orange property set is one of the most
         | frequented sets in the game due to the approximately 37% chance
         | of landing on one upon the first turn after leaving jail; the
         | most visited space on the board. In combination with a
         | relatively cheap development cost, the Orange property set can
         | be valuable to own.
        
       | shanecleveland wrote:
       | * That thing that made you weird as a kid could make you great as
       | an adult -- if you don't lose it.
       | 
       | I wish I could have grasped this as a kid, and I wish I could
       | explain this to my kids now and have them understand/believe me.
       | 
       | My kids each have their own unique personalities, strengths,
       | weaknesses, etc. But they all have to funnel through the same
       | general requirements of school and such. It is too easy to fall
       | into the trap of getting them to "conform." But I want to be able
       | to nurture the "weird" in them!
        
         | bigthymer wrote:
         | I found Bezos' last letter inspiring in this regard. Especially
         | one of the last sections titled "Differentiation is Survival
         | and the Universe Wants You to be Typical".
         | 
         | link here -> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/jeff-bezos-
         | releases-final-le...
        
           | shanecleveland wrote:
           | I like the analogy he makes here.
           | 
           | There is a balance in here somewhere to learn how to
           | navigate, adapt and live within a society/community that
           | favors set standards and "normality" without muting out
           | uniqueness, personal interests, etc.
        
           | coldtea wrote:
           | > _Differentiation is Survival and the Universe Wants You to
           | be Typical_
           | 
           | "Oh, and while you differentiate, those of you on my
           | warehouses don't forget to work 10 hour shifts and pee in
           | bottles, so that I can get a few dollars more per hour from
           | each disposable you"
        
         | 01100011 wrote:
         | That's a tough one for me. I seem to be stuck on an axis of
         | either being nerdy, anti-social, physically unfit and
         | intelligent or outgoing, stupid, and physically fit. I've
         | varied along the axis throughout my life and never managed to
         | be a good nerd while also being mentally and physically
         | healthy. I've seen a lot of other people do it, it's just not
         | something I've been able to pull off.
         | 
         | I work with a lot of people who remind me of my former self and
         | I'm afraid to encourage them to find balance in their lives
         | because I don't want them to lose their genius like I feel I
         | did. It's tough when you grow up a nerd and find most of your
         | self-worth and security in your intellectual superiority and
         | then lose it because you thought the grass was greener on the
         | other side.
        
           | shanecleveland wrote:
           | I think the real revelation comes in understanding that the
           | grass will always appear greener on the other side,
           | regardless of which side you find yourself on. That is a hard
           | thing to understand without having gone through that.
           | 
           | Edit, such this additional advice:
           | 
           | * If you can avoid seeking approval of others, your power is
           | limitless.
        
       | abhinuvpitale wrote:
       | Great advice. Looking at the headline, I thought this article was
       | originally about bit-encoding, since it mentioned 99 bits.
        
       | standardUser wrote:
       | I just learned how to tie a bowline knot.
       | 
       | 5 stars
        
         | swyx wrote:
         | what have you used it on?
        
           | GloriousKoji wrote:
           | It's useful for when you need a loop and a secure knot that
           | won't slip or become undone. Basically where you would do a
           | regular knot but need more knot strength.
           | 
           | I've used it for securing crab pods, pulling out a small
           | tree, hanging decorations from ceiling hooks, as the front
           | anchor for strapping down things to the top of my car,
           | connecting lines to kites and tying the tea bag string to the
           | handle of my coworkers mug as a prank to name a few uses of
           | the top of my head.
           | 
           | I've also used it for climbing in certain situations but I
           | would highly recommend learning the figure 8 and using that
           | for all climbing things related.
        
         | barbazoo wrote:
         | Learning how to use knots is just so satisfying, I don't know
         | what it is, I can't really put my finger on it.
        
           | RaceWon wrote:
           | >> I can't really put my finger on it.
           | 
           | Plus 1
        
           | waynesonfire wrote:
           | I agree! I recall a time when I spent an hour in a home depot
           | parking lot strapping down lumber to the roof of my car
           | practicing the trucker's hitch.
           | 
           | https://www.animatedknots.com/truckers-hitch-knot
        
       | phaemon wrote:
       | No matter what use ECC RAM; you may have 99 bits but the problem
       | is one.
        
         | nwiswell wrote:
         | "I got 99 popcount but the parity ain't one"
        
       | vlmutolo wrote:
       | > Be strict with yourself and forgiving of others. The reverse is
       | hell for everyone.
       | 
       | I think this is generally good advice, but it's equally important
       | to not be too hard on yourself. You have to learn to forgive
       | yourself for mistakes.
        
       | mym1990 wrote:
       | Some fun, interesting, true, and meh bits of wisdom here!
       | 
       | These 2 stuck out as ironic being back to back:
       | 
       | * I have never met a person I admired who did not read more books
       | than I did.
       | 
       | * The greatest teacher is called "doing".
       | 
       | Although without more context, its just a snap judgement.
       | Admiring only people who are well read(assuming OP reads a lot)
       | seems to leave a bit on the table.
        
         | lostmsu wrote:
         | Re: books. Surprisingly I met such a person recently. She does
         | not read books at all these days, and haven't been in a while
         | (except textbooks in academia years). Got PhD in physics, and
         | doing well for herself.
        
         | claudiawerner wrote:
         | >* I have never met a person I admired who did not read more
         | books than I did.
         | 
         | I think Schopenhauer has good words of advice on this topic
         | (and the irony of reading this advice in a book is not lost on
         | me; emphasis mine):
         | 
         | >Hence, in regard to reading, it is a very important thing to
         | be able to refrain. Skill in doing so consists in not taking
         | into one's hands any book merely because at the time it happens
         | to be extensively read; such as political or religious
         | pamphlets, novels, poetry, and the like, which make a noise,
         | and may even attain to several editions in the first and last
         | year of their existence. Consider, rather, that the man who
         | writes for fools is always sure of a large audience; be careful
         | to limit your time for reading, and devote it exclusively to
         | the works of those great minds of all times and countries, who
         | o'ertop the rest of humanity, those whom the voice of fame
         | points to as such. These alone really educate and instruct.
         | _You can never read bad literature too little, nor good
         | literature too much. Bad books are intellectual poison; they
         | destroy the mind._ Because people always read what is new
         | instead of the best of all ages, writers remain in the narrow
         | circle of the ideas which happen to prevail in their time; and
         | so the period sinks deeper and deeper into its own mire.
        
         | quickthrower2 wrote:
         | Reading books seems to be put on a pedestal here and in other
         | places online. I don't read many I prefer doing and online
         | video courses
        
           | einpoklum wrote:
           | Uh... you probably want to complete that paragraph with a
           | "and still I have achieved XYZ in life", otherwise you're
           | just an anonymous commenter :-\
        
         | qsort wrote:
         | "Advice like these are not laws. They are like hats. If one
         | doesn't fit, try another."
        
           | grey-area wrote:
           | I preferred this one:
           | 
           | Un bon mot ne prouve rien.
        
       | dspillett wrote:
       | _> Leave a gate behind you the way you first found it._
       | 
       | Not sure this one is generally applicable. When I'm out running
       | are walking trails I always close gates unless there appears to
       | be specific reason not to. Some people carelessly leave them
       | open, some do so accidentally, some mistakenly think it should be
       | left open because it was when they went through but there has
       | been a steady flow if people leaving it for the next one and the
       | first opened it.
        
       | shanecleveland wrote:
       | * Compliment people behind their back. It'll come back to you.
       | 
       | Such a hard thing to quantify - and attempting to quantify it
       | misses the point - but I think this is such an under appreciated
       | point.
       | 
       | I know that I am quick to gossip or talk about other people's
       | failings behind their back. Partly, I think it is easy for people
       | to relate to each other based on a shared view of someone else.
       | And, unfortunately, I think it is easier to come up with negative
       | examples to talk about.
       | 
       | Imagine if more of us found opportunities to say something good
       | about someone just because.
        
         | uoaei wrote:
         | Opportunities of this kind are not found, but made.
        
       | jeppesen-io wrote:
       | > * Always cut away from yourself.
       | 
       | I like this link but but I don't know what that means
        
         | notenoughbeans wrote:
         | I learned it as:
         | 
         | "Never get yourself bloody. Always cut towards a buddy."
        
         | taejo wrote:
         | When using a knife, saw, axe, etc. or other cutting implement
         | always make sure the blade is moving away from all parts of
         | your body.
        
           | magicalhippo wrote:
           | My granddad being a woodworking teacher, I learned that
           | lesson early on.
           | 
           | However when redecorating my house there were several
           | occasions where it simply was not possible to do that. I
           | usually countered my cutting hand with my "free" hand,
           | effectively pushing my cutting hand away from my body as I
           | performed the cut. At least then I had pretty good control in
           | the event my blade were to slip.
        
           | barbazoo wrote:
           | My father in law has one rule: Don't get any blood on it.
        
           | jeppesen-io wrote:
           | Ahhh - literal. I was thinking figuratively
        
             | dredmorbius wrote:
             | Both.
             | 
             | Literal: move the blade / cutting edge away from you.
             | 
             | Figurative: apply hazardous effort in a manner that it
             | dissipates in the direction or mode of least harm.
        
       | rednerrus wrote:
       | > The worst evils in history have always been committed by those
       | who truly believed they were combating evil. Beware of combating
       | evil.
        
         | CoastalCoder wrote:
         | Am I just showcasing my own ignorance by wanting support for
         | this claim?
         | 
         | I've heard it stated elsewhere, but I've never heard a detailed
         | argument supporting it. The closest justification I recall
         | hearing is a vague reference to the Spanish Inquisition.
        
           | dionidium wrote:
           | I think where you really see this is in any case where one
           | group identifies another group that they perceive to be their
           | oppressor and then having done so, imagine themselves to be
           | justified in leveling a retributive response. (The example I
           | used in another comment above was the mass enslavement and
           | starvation of the kulaks in revolutionary Russia on the
           | grounds that they had been oppressors of the proletariat.)
        
           | inglor_cz wrote:
           | At the risk of Godwining this thread, Hitler was really,
           | really convinced that Jews were evil schemers that dealt in
           | betrayal, fraud and conspiracy against innocent and naive
           | Gentiles. And that their destruction was a necessary step to
           | cleanse the Earth off their evil.
           | 
           | The end result: Auschwitz.
        
             | spijdar wrote:
             | It goes back even further, actually, and provides another
             | data-point for this aphorism. The Teutonic Order, a sort of
             | ... indirect relative/precursor [0] to the German
             | Empire/Republic which the Nazis grew in was notorious for
             | doing some really horrific things in the name of God, and
             | in trying to force convert the lands north of
             | Prussia/Poland. The surrounding Christians states didn't
             | really approve of this, and eventually pushed them back.
             | They seemed to be pretty obsessed themselves with the idea
             | that other Christians were backstabbing and betraying their
             | cause.
             | 
             | It seems their cause was, originally, in good intentions.
             | I'll give them the benefit of the doubt at least. But it's
             | clear by the end they fulfilled this aphorism, and became a
             | great evil by trying to fight evil.
             | 
             | [0] The Teutonic Order held land, the "Deutschordensstaat".
             | When Martin Luther convinced the then-Grand-Master Albert
             | to convert, he turned that land into a secular state, the
             | Duchy of Prussia, which became the Kingdom of Prussia,
             | which became the leading state of the German Empire.
        
             | CJefferson wrote:
             | I agree, but I also imagine all those fighting the Nazis
             | also thought they were fighting evil. Should they have
             | "beware fighting evil"?
        
               | benjohnson wrote:
               | Yes. After seeing what the Nazis had done, those that
               | fought the Nazis would have been justified in exacting
               | immediate justice by killing all of them.
               | 
               | Thankfully - they didn't.
        
           | bena wrote:
           | If you believe your enemy is truly and irredeemably evil,
           | what tactics are allowed to eradicate that evil?
           | 
           | Technically, anything should be allowed, because removing
           | that evil from the world would be an undeniable good. To find
           | that evil, you should be allowed to do anything to anyone
           | trying to hide that evil from you. As a matter of fact,
           | anyone trying to shelter that evil or sides with that evil
           | shares some of the guilt as well. They are just as evil as
           | the evil you wish to eradicate. So, once again, nothing is
           | off limits.
           | 
           | Ridicule? Allowed. Lying to them? Allowed. Stealing from
           | them? Allowed. Torture? Allowed. Murder? Allowed.
           | 
           | And if you're allowed to do these things and actually do
           | them, at what point are you not just a different flavor of
           | the same evil? What separates you from them?
           | 
           | The only thing you needed to become your most depraved self
           | was an excuse.
           | 
           | Some actions are wrong. And there are some lines we shouldn't
           | cross. No matter how evil you think someone is, that does not
           | justify certain actions. And some actions should only be
           | reserved for certain circumstances and those circumstances
           | never happen to be "I think he's evil".
        
             | fwip wrote:
             | Quoth dril, the scholar of our times:
             | 
             | > the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres
             | actually zero difference between good & bad things. you
             | imbecile. you fucking moron"
             | 
             | https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312
        
           | the_lonely_road wrote:
           | Mother Teresa is likely to be a good example as long as you
           | believe she thought she was doing gods work and agree that
           | the details of how she did that are reprehensible.
        
             | AnimalMuppet wrote:
             | What is reprehensible about how she did what she did?
        
               | _jal wrote:
               | As with most things, Wikipedia will get you started:
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa
               | 
               | A relevant quote from there summarizing some of them:
               | 
               | "caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering
               | instead of relieving it, ... her questionable political
               | contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums
               | of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views
               | regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and
               | divorce".
        
               | AnimalMuppet wrote:
               | Her "overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular,
               | abortion, contraception, and divorce" are, I suspect,
               | orthodox Catholic doctrine. As for the rest, critics
               | criticize. She sure wasn't using the money she received
               | to get personally rich. She was working with/caring for
               | people that nobody else was. While less than perfect, I'm
               | not seeing "reprehensible" anywhere in the substance of
               | the criticism.
               | 
               | (Read the "Responses to criticism" section of that
               | article for a decent explanation of why most of the
               | criticism is completely missing the point.)
        
               | coliveira wrote:
               | This is not the main point of the criticism. The issue is
               | that she raised millions in money that was not used for
               | her cause of taking care of suffering people in India.
               | Instead, the bulk of the money was sent to religious
               | causes and to the Vatican.
        
           | tarboreus wrote:
           | Think about the people who did the most evil things you can
           | think of. Were they really certain they were fighting evil?
           | Contrast with people who you think were admirable. Did they
           | think they were fighting evil?
           | 
           | These are aphorisms, not essays. You either recognize (high-
           | level) wisdom in them, or you don't.
        
             | CoastalCoder wrote:
             | > These are aphorisms, not essays.
             | 
             | That's a good observation. I agree that it's reasonable to
             | treat them as aphorisms.
             | 
             | But even if we allow for a certain amount of hyperbole in
             | aphorisms, I would think there's some threshold of factual
             | accuracy that we want before accepting a given aphorism.
             | 
             | That, and simple curiosity, are what motivated my original
             | question.
        
         | akomtu wrote:
         | "Combating" here likely means doing evil things in order to
         | combat other evil things. For example, the "Inferno" movie's
         | plot was to release a virus to downsize the population in order
         | to combat global warming.
        
           | dionidium wrote:
           | I think even that's too generous. It can also mean
           | misidentifying and mislabeling (or at the very least,
           | overreacting to) the causes of something one thinks is evil.
           | One might decide, for example, that the workers in early 20th
           | century Russia have been unfairly oppressed by the kulaks and
           | then, upon determining therefore that those kulaks meet a
           | standard for "evil," sleep soundly carrying out actions that
           | result in their mass enslavement and starvation (all in the
           | name of fighting oppression).
        
       | a3w wrote:
       | * A problem that can be solved with money is not really a
       | problem.
       | 
       | I am broke and need X, which no one gives for free. Let's call X
       | education, because that and time might solve everything. Is that
       | not a problem worth calling so?
        
         | intergalplan wrote:
         | If we're being charitable, we could take "can" to include "you
         | can (reasonably) afford it", as in "YOU can solve the problem
         | with money", not "ONE could solve the problem with money, if
         | one had money".
         | 
         | Given the tone of the rest of the piece, I'm not sure being
         | that charitable is warranted, though. I'm legitimately having a
         | hard time telling whether this list is presented seriously, or
         | as some kind of parody.
        
           | a1369209993 wrote:
           | > If we're being charitable
           | 
           | Or, in the spirit of taking it as parody, that it's at least
           | a 'solved' problem[0] in the sense of the mathematician who
           | sees a fire, sees a fire extinguisher, says "Ah, a solution
           | exists!", and moves on.
           | 
           | 0: where a solved (note lack of scare quotes) problem isn't
           | really a problem.
        
         | v64 wrote:
         | My takeaway from it is if the problem requires money to solve,
         | at least you are aware of the solution: money. It may be
         | difficult or impossible to achieve that end, but at least you
         | know it's the direction to go and can possibly make progress
         | toward solving.
         | 
         | The worst kind of problem is one you can't see your way out of
         | and no option seems to exist to escape it.
        
         | scottlilly wrote:
         | The version of this I've always heard is, "Any problem that can
         | be solved by writing a check you can afford to write, is not
         | really a problem."
         | 
         | So, if your car suddenly needs a $500 repair, and you have
         | $2500 in emergency savings, that's not a "problem". It's a
         | contingency you were prepared to handle.
        
           | msla wrote:
           | > It's a contingency you were prepared to handle.
           | 
           | Which is a better way to phrase it:
           | 
           | A contingency you were prepared to handle is not a problem.
           | 
           | After all, a billionaire can still get lost at sea and die.
        
             | generalizations wrote:
             | The version I heard was, "be prepared".
        
         | cabaalis wrote:
         | If you can pay someone to do something, that thing you are
         | paying for is a problem which has already been solved by
         | someone, therefore not a problem.
        
         | coldtea wrote:
         | > _A problem that can be solved with money is not really a
         | problem._
         | 
         | He means money that you have and can spare.
        
         | bena wrote:
         | It's more about recognizing second order effects.
         | 
         | If a problem can be solved with money, your real problem is not
         | having the money.
        
       | oh_sigh wrote:
       | > Jesus, Superman, and Mother Teresa never made art. Only
       | imperfect beings can make art because art begins in what is
       | broken.
       | 
       | Spoken like someone who has never done even a cursory glance into
       | Mother Teresa.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-04-26 23:01 UTC)