Beyond reason: the mathematical equation for unconditional love - <AUTHOR> https://sinapticas.com/2019/08/29/beyond-reason-the-mathematical-equation-for-unconditional-love/ <comment><USER2> I'm not sure when this happened for me, but I noticed recently that I don't, or maybe it's _can 't_, care about hypothetical big-picture philosophical waxing like this. It just doesn't mean anything - I can't extract any useful information from the text, it might as well be Greek. I used to be into reading metaphysics and thinking about things like this as a college freshman, but now a few years out of school I just don't care about trying to fit mathematical models to intangible human behaviors. I don't care what model you think governs the world, I want to see some statistics.

Has anyone else gone through a similar change?

<comment><USER3> No. I go in a different direction:

I started with the basic treating variables as placeholders for concepts. So, for me, it's asking, "What does this symbol represent?" I realize due to qualia, everyone's experiences vary, so we can both call x unconditional love, but also understand x equals two different, yet similar, things between us.

When I started exploring philosophy I started getting recursively meta. Asking questions like, how does this category of things work?

But then as time went on, I started going in the opposite direction, and feel that it has yielded more fruit: If every singular thing in the universe is actually a set of ideas, then how can I break x up into multiple pieces? How do I label/name those pieces? What awareness does that increased resolution give me?

By playing with this abstraction/decomposition paradigm, awareness can be increased in both directions to ~inf.

This, as a side effect, increases one kind of intelligence. I frame this as metaphysics, though, I admit, I am unaware if this is an incorrect way to label it.

After all, labels (ie abstractions) are nothing more than our mind drawing lines around objects in the world, like the lines in a coloring book. It's our mind doing it, so we get to choose how we draw those lines. If someone wants to label love in one way and I choose to label it in another way, that's completely fine. The beauty in it, to me, is seeing how others see/perceive the world.

When I read a text book, I'm not just looking to learn a new topic or further my knowledge of a topic. I'm looking into how the author sees the world. This, to me, is far more fun than simply learning the topic. I feel the average person scratches the surface of what there is to explore.

So do I get bored of it? No. But it seems I'm exploring it in a different way than you, and that possibly explains why. To me, learning is like socializing. I get to see others in what they present, and that is beautiful.

<comment><USER2> I'm sorry, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. I have no idea what you said between "I go in a different direction" and "When I read a text book...". That might mean I'm just not intelligent enough, but phrases like "awareness can be increased in both directions to ~inf" have the same over-generalizing feel as astrology predictions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that if you're thinking about love using Bayesian theory, you're doing it wrong.

<comment><USER5> Here is a video presentation on the mathematics of love, by Rachel Bloom: [https://youtu.be/Ck-UhvbCDAk](https://youtu.be/Ck-UhvbCDAk)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not convinced. What the author describes as irrational or for no reason are likely just reasons that are too difficult to grasp or articulate. I bet even people we would describe as clinically insane probably have reasons that they do things that we simply don't understand.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems like believing anything truly unconditionally is completely irrational and even more insane than any insane we've seen before.

<comment><USER7> >I bet even people we would describe as clinically insane probably have reasons that they do things that we simply don't understand.

I'm not sure about this. I've had a head injury in the past that resulted in (thankfully temporary) in anxiety issues. There were spells of anxiety where I sort of had a reason to be anxious (e.g. deadlines), but I simultaneously had a rational awareness during the bout of anxiety that my stress levels (so nervous can't work) were completely incompatible with the consequences of missing said deadline (of which there would be basically no consequences; not even in terms of coworkers' view of me or my skills).

Granted I wasn't close to clinically insane I think, but the point is that the brain is complex and ostensibly there seems to be multiple levels of consciousness and activity going on in the human brain. One can reason something in the abstract, yet emotionally feel completely at odds with their reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Kinda related: relationships where one partner gains love for the other by being hated by the other (but the other acts just mimics the other's affection) as an unstable dynamical system. [https://ai.stanford.edu/~rajatr/articles/SS_love_dEq.pdf](https://ai.stanford.edu/~rajatr/articles/SS_love_dEq.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER9> You can love and hate someone at the same time, it's not an or situation

</comment><comment><USER10> For me unconditional love equates to believing in human dignity, that's your love for other people without question. But it does not go much further than guaranteeing the rights and freedom of other people. Other sorts of love is for most but the most naive almost entirely conditional, and for good reason, as they can hurt you badly if you love them and they do not love you (as a precondition)... and that's just for starters. There are many other pre- conditions to love.

</comment><comment><USER11> I have an unconditional credence of degree 1 that taxpayers money, for which this "research" was granted, could have been used in a much better way.

</comment><comment><USER12> I can also suggest a game-theoretic take on real love:

Let _U_ be your utility function Let _U '_ be your partner's utility function Let _U_ and _U '_ be normalised against the same scale

A love is real iff

* U is defined in terms of _U '_: _U = C(U ')_

* and for any positive change _e '_ there is a _e >= e'_ such that _U + e = C(U ' \+ e')_.

Disclaimer: no guru, I know formulations are sloppy, but you get the idea :)

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't think it's useful to say you can have a credence of 1.0 in a belief (love in this case), admit that 1.0 means it can't rationally change at all, and then say that it can be irrationally changed. It sounds like a roundabout way to say the credence is actually some number less than 1.0, and it takes a very strong update (which the author mislabels as "irrational") to affect the credence much.

</comment><comment><USER14> This was a special good reading for me, thanks. I loved the maths.

What about un/conditional gratitude, or un/conditional compassion?

</comment><comment><USER15> BTW, if you love somebody conditionally and would stop loving and withdraw your commitment in some theoretically possible case (like if the person you love becomes ugly, you find out they are cheating or they roam the city killing kittens at night while you're asleep) then you are not actually loving them, you just enjoy the combination of traits they currently possess.

<comment><USER6> That's a nice sentiment, but everything you believe is conditional. I doubt there is literally no changes that could ever occur that would change your mind about anything including love.

Perhaps the likelihood of those things are close to zero, but that doesn't mean it isn't in the realm of possibility. Although I suspect it wouldn't be that difficult to introduce a change that would trigger one of those conditions.

<comment><USER15> I agree. Perhaps someone might use some kind of drug or whatever to erase my memory about the choice I've made to love that particular person no matter what.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There is a very small but non-zero proportion of humanity that will benefit greatly from this (sort of thing.) Roughly those who are on what is called the "mind-only" path. (Vulcans, from Star Trek.) For them this is a profound and deep proof.

\- - - -

Once as a small child I experienced spontaneously _unconditional love_ for approximately twenty seconds. Subjectively I felt a deep and abiding love for all things everywhere. The Universe itself was a small thing embedded in an unbounded ocean of love.

In a certain sense the experience never left me as the memory of it is a kind of background and foundation to the rest of my life.

I won't wax too mystical here on HN, but in time I found that love is a physical reality that undergirds the world of form, that the real world is an expression in different modes and frequencies of love. E.g. gravity is love. All matter/energy yearns to return to itself in the unity that existed before Time.

\- - - -

BTW, there is a simple algorithm to enter and experience "higher" subjective realities. It's called "Core Transformation Process" and, as I said, it's a simple, easy, fast, effective algorithm. [https://www.coretransformation.org/](https://www.coretransformation.org/)</comment>


IPad flies past Android in Web browsing usage share - <AUTHOR> http://ipadwatcher.com/2010/07/01/ipad-flies-past-android-in-web-browsing-usage-share/ <comment><USER2> I was absolutely baffled last week when I found out a full 50% of mobile traffic is coming from iPads on our servers.</comment>


Caijing is an independent magazine devoted to reporting on business in China. - <AUTHOR> http://english.caijing.com.cn/ <comment><AUTHOR> From an article in the New Yorker that's behind their recently-instituted paywall: [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/07/20/090720fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/07/20/090720fa_fact_osnos)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caijing></comment>


The same data, the same map, different stories - <AUTHOR> http://www.excelcharts.com/blog/the-same-data-the-same-map-different-stories/

<comment><USER2> Nice, but most visualizations don't take in account the scaling effects present in the data. Most social science systems are wildly non-linear.

IMHO, the best way is to try to model the data, then calculate the ratio between the predicted and the observed (real) data point. From there, you would have an index that account for the scaling in the system. The problem is that the model needs a good number of points and the data should not be too heteroscedastic. It's the hot new thing in scientometrics...

</comment><comment><USER3> That is a nice post indeed, simple and to the point. I also enjoyed [http://www.excelcharts.com/blog/creative-pie-charts- better-i...](http://www.excelcharts.com/blog/creative-pie-charts-better- infographics/) but that is a different genre of visualisation.</comment>


C++Now 2017 – Haskell taketh away [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC5UWG5N8oY <comment><USER2> I enjoyed this. It is a rare example of good communication across language communities.</comment>


Why Cognitive Enhancement Is in Your Future - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/why-cognitive-enhancement-is-in-your-future-and-your-past/252566/ <comment><USER2> Submission one week ago (no comments):

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3562364>

Submission five days ago (with sole comment pointing to the earlier submission):

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3570844></comment>


5 disadvantages of Linux - <AUTHOR> http://windows2linux.tech-no-media.com/2009/06/5-disadvantages-of-linux.html

<comment><USER2> Eh, all fairly expected situations concerning the non-standard and non-profit nature of it.

The lack of commercial software could be resolved with homogenization but OSS developers are too busy bickering over Drepper, RMS, and Zed.

Those fools aren't merely highlighting a problem, they _are_ the problem and more attention needs to be paid to the matter of pragmatism. The mainstream parts of the Linux desktop need to be homogenized before this particular problem will be resolved.

Schism is not choice. Schism is the destruction of a good choice for the sake of producing multiple poor options.

Schism is the definition of the Linux software environment.</comment>


Ask HN: Will a ruling against Bilski have any impact on software patents? - <AUTHOR>

With speculation that we might even have some news in the next few days - what's the current view on this case? If Bilski loses will it pull the rug from under software patents as well or will the judgement be more narrowly targeted? <comment><AUTHOR> Here's the article that hints about the 20th May being a possible day for the decision: [http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/05/17/another-day-without- bil...](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/05/17/another-day-without-bilski- decision-what-does-it-mean/id=10554/)</comment>


Show HN home supplies delivered via subscription - <AUTHOR>

We built this in our free time. Looking for feedback on the overall service and any thoughts of improvement.<p>Www.getresupply.com <comment><USER2> Great idea - I was thinking something like this for NYCers as storage space is at a premium but it's cheaper online so a monthly/remember me type service is a win/win.

Good luck with it.

One small thing - [https://www.getresupply.com/privacy](https://www.getresupply.com/privacy) is broken.

Cheers

</comment><comment><USER3> The color theme is terrible. The red "logo"? overlaid over a #444 background is a no-no. The site doesnt portray professionalism and inspire confidence in handing over my credit card details. I am sorry if my feedback seems overly harsh but the UI is the app to the customer.

<comment><AUTHOR> No offense taken!I feel the the same way. I think the theme needs to be brighter and more inviting. I'm not really skilledon UI design myself so was looking for honest feedback. Thanks!</comment></comment>


Show HN: Hackernoon 2.0 - <AUTHOR> http://Hackernoon.com <comment><USER2> With Indian ping times, I get a flash of unstyled content, 4 seconds till content settles down, 17.56 seconds till all 63 assets are downloaded. Even the unstyled content jumps around. Firefox on Ubuntu. Wish the designers go easy on the design.

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks cool! but the first article I tried to read in "Software Architecture" was a [1] broken link...

[https://hackernoon.com/hypothesis-cqrs-models-with- blockchai...](https://hackernoon.com/hypothesis-cqrs-models-with-blockchain- as-the-persistence-layer-will-work-a6aa72c31800)

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm curious why the site is called Hackernoon. Here's a few of my favorite posts that I've seen on Hacker News:

Making My Own USB Keyboard from Scratch - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19181473](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19181473)

Hacking the Casio F-91W to Handle 1000 Psi - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20079488](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20079488)

Merging a Hasselblad 500C/M and a FujiFilm Instax 9 - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18180760](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18180760)

Integrating a VT220 into my life - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11339909](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11339909)

Open-Source Controller for the IKEA Bekant Standing Desk - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19020257](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19020257)

To me, these articles really represent what "hacking" is - using technology _exactly_ the way you want to, usually through modifications - and why this site deserves the title of Hacker News . They inspire us to see technology as a tool that serves us, like furniture or cooking utensils, not something you have to be generally "into" or some ecosystem to follow. Hackernoon's website predominately features articles on cryptocurrencies and blockchain, two things that really don't serve the general public [1] [2]. What's "Hacker" about an entire section dedicated to FAANG [3]? The Coding category of the site has sections on corporate philosophies like agile and scrum, but nothing on projects people have made - is that intentional? Who is the kind of person you imagine visiting the site?

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/bitcoi...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/bitcoin- big-oil-environment-energy) [2] [https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/decentralized-and- trustle...](https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/decentralized-and-trustless- crypto-paradise-is-actually-a-medieval-hellhole-c1ca122efdec) [3] [https://hackernoon.com/tagged/faagm](https://hackernoon.com/tagged/faagm)

<comment><USER5> Is the FAAGM "section" (quotes because it's just a tag) linked from home page somewhat prominently? On mobile I didn't see it. And there's only one tagged article for me in that link on mobile.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, it's in a drop-down from the main page.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think it was all for the best when Hacker Noon moved off of Medium and controlled their own destiny.

With this 2.0 launch, content is easy to come by - but I will say the various shades of green are a little intense for my taste.

</comment><comment><USER7> What is hacker noon? Is it a syndicate?

</comment><comment><USER8> Congratulations on stepping away from Medium and controlling your own platform! It's a big step.

</comment><comment><USER9> Thumbs up for moving away from medium. Please make the colors a bit more calm :)</comment>


Tell HN: I've made Quotty.com for quoting articles - <AUTHOR>

This is my weekend project, which I'd like to share.
I've noticed how often links on HN get comments, that summarize the article, so that others don't waste their time. In fact, I always read comments first and look for such short summaries. So, I thought it'd be nice to have a place, where you can store a couple of sentences from the original article which best characterize it and then share a short link to this quote on twitter or elsewhere, instead of a direct link to the long original article.
quotty.com <comment><USER2> Appears to falsely not recognise quotes as coming from the page of origin. This may be something to do with stripping tags and formatting? It worked eventually when I chose a short plain section but not when the quote section had links or em tags or headers or whatever.

What's the point of the site?

Edit: don't get me wrong it looks nice, works reasonably; I just don't get why I'd use it. Also on a point of use, the "thanks for your voice" - is that a typo? I'd put it as a flag on the heart itself so that the "please upvote" flag simply changes to a "thankyou" when you click". Lastly upvotes use an up arrow, favorites (sic) use a heart, which is it?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the reason the quote didn't match at first is because some websites use weird special symbols, which I wasn't able to strip yet. I must admit that the parser is not all that smart right now. But it definitely should strip all the tags.

About the "heart" ico - you're probably right, I just thought that "heart" means "I loved that quote, i.e. I'm upvoting it".

Thanks for the reply.

<comment><USER2> Make the text on the heart popup "I loved that quote" (or "liked" is probably better if you want people to vote more).

The page was a simple WP page with no special symbols, UTF-8 encoding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I can't easily read fonts that are that big.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> clickable: <http://quotty.com></comment>


What age and sex does Google think you are? - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/settings/ads/onweb/?sig=ACi0TChWyjxXiASwR-3436tgUJANbYl68m3uOCUFIYTIs8U2vhQsbbXEMDcKjFXz97wWPTUWU2Kbx4XhWZOpBrcwgmwYn632D70purD6STxsj5E2Okw6pMJeXqRWG2jOv7r6fGi_Ox9Wo8Wj9j-DdaXaOjq9V8vzmlnmMFB0R8ZYozYfmJSna1g&hl=en

<comment><USER2>
        Google: Male, 18-24
        Real life: Female, 29

. . . but I find that oddly validating.

Edit: And I'm thinking the ads will probably stay more relevant if I don't fix that.

</comment><comment><USER3> "You've opted out, but you can opt in at any time." I am really surprised that the majority of readers of HN have not opted out from being tracked.

</comment><comment><USER4> It just tells me that I've opted out of whatever this is.

</comment><comment><USER5> It has no idea what my age or gender are. Which amuses me to no end, because I specified gender on my profile, and don't keep my age secret either :)

Or maybe it thinks "Female, 42" is unflattering and so it stays silent. An ad network with manners!

</comment><comment><USER6> Google doesn't care what your age and sex _really_ are. They're just dividing people into demographics for advertising purposes. So if you are likely to click on similar ads as other people they've put into the same bucket, they're happy.

</comment><comment><USER7> Google had what I was a few years ago, but they've not updated my age range.

My Tivo unit used to record a lot of the Logo network shows for me, and I could never figure out why, or get it to stop.

</comment><comment><USER8> How do all of you 60+ folk manage it? It has my age off by 20 years---got the sex right but not even close on the age. Wonder if there is a button I can push to as Kirk would say 'Make is so'?

<comment><USER9> Picard said that. Not Kirk, old man :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Me: 20, male. Google Infers: 65+, male.

not sure how to take that...

<comment><USER11> Purchasing too much viagra!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Firefox (Aurora) and I get this:

      Your browser's cookies seem to be disabled. Ads Preferences will not work until you enable cookies in your browser. How do I enable cookies?

No, cookies are not disabled. I am even logged in on the Google website.

Maybe because I don't live in the US?

</comment><comment><USER13> I do not understand why this is even a thing to discuss.

An algorithm may or may not have got something correct.

An algorithm that works out advertising. If it gets it wrong we won't click through, if it does we might but probably won't as we're all geeks that ignore ads anyway.

FUD.

</comment><comment><USER14> Google thinks I'm male (probably gleaned that juicy tidbit from my profile). No word yet on my age.

</comment><comment><USER15>
       Google: 25-34, Male
       Actual: 28, Male

Would be kind of disappointing if they didn't know, given that they have more of my personal information on their servers than I have on my own computer.

</comment><comment><USER16> It thinks I'm a 65+-year-old male into extreme sports and uh... anatomy?

</comment><comment><USER17> "Ads on the web You've opted out, but you can opt in at any time."

Well yeah.

Its actually funny. I have DNT enabled. If I click opt in, it refresh and doesn't opt in. Doesn't say why :-)

</comment><comment><USER18> Funny, they think I'm 65+, just like the television seems too...

(One of the reasons I quit watching TV is it seems like all the ads are for people whose main asset is medicare benefits)

</comment><comment><USER19> I opted out on my main browser. On a browser I don't use so much and don't have tracking disabled: male and 65+. More than half that and not male. I guess I should shop for more pink stuff?

</comment><comment><USER20> [http://www.theonion.com/articles/google-responds-to- privacy-...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/google-responds-to-privacy- concerns-with-unsettlin,16891/)

<comment><USER21> <http://xkcd.com/713/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Excellent: "You currently do not have an 'id' cookie."

</comment><comment><USER23> Male, 25-34. I am actually male and 31.

</comment><comment><USER24> Male, 25-34. I turn 25 in 2 months and am male. Heh not bad.

</comment><comment><USER25> Male, 35-44

I'm actually male and 38. Not bad.

</comment><comment><USER26> Male, 35-44

Actually male and 29.

<comment><USER27> That's exactly my result as well!

Should we be friends maybe? :)

<comment><USER28> Same here, but i'm a bit younger at 26. Obviously mature for my age.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Male, 65+ Actually male and 30

<comment><USER30> Almost the same here, except for late 20s. Very weird.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Somehow, it doesn't know.</comment>


Ask HN: Resources to Start as a Cyber Security Professional - <AUTHOR> I would like to explore and start my career as a Cyber Security Professional but as I dig online the resources are kinda old.<p>What books do you recommend for beginners? What are the topics to be focused on? Malware? Pen Testing? Basic TCP/IP? <comment><USER2> Depends on what you want to do. If you are good with people, I suggest Information Assurance. It's basically consulting combined with cyber security. Most SMEs only require advice on basic network security, password management, how to avoid phishing attacks, social engineering attacks and ransomware, how to handle crises after being hacked etc. Checklists will get you a long way. Leave the reverse engineering of malware etc. to people with more interest and time. It is a more narrow field, takes a lot of additional effort and requires a fair bit of talent. If you are just going into cybersecurity for money, stick with IA. I know this is not a popular opinion on HN, but your average SME won't be able to do information security properly (remember, your average consumer believes in using an anti-virus to clean out a infected machine, when the correct thing to do is a complete wipe and reinstallation). Easier get them to offload most of their productivity tools to SaaSes and buy plenty of insurance than try to force FANG-level access control protocols on them.

<comment><USER3> > Leave the reverse engineering of malware etc. to people with more interest > and time.

...

> (remember, your average consumer believes in using an anti-virus to clean > out a infected machine, when the correct thing to do is a complete wipe and > reinstallation). Easier get them to offload most of their productivity tools > to SaaSes and buy plenty of insurance than try to force FANG-level access > control protocols on them.

this is a very bad advice.

<comment><USER2> Not really, do you honestly want people to be hosting their own email servers? Stuff like networked filesystems and NAS over VPN requires a tremendous amount of work to properly secure. Better give the money to a *aas company than to waste it on incompetent IT departments. Especially since a lot of companies consider IT to be a cost center instead of a source of value. Idealism is nice and all but most companies won't care enough and data protection laws don't magically make the problem go away. More pragmatic to simply outsource security to more qualified technical companies instead of trying to do it yourself. Also, low level OS/assembly level domain knowledge isn't as useful for non-technical, SMEs. There's not much a company can do when you tell them their 30 year old in-house CAD software written in Fortran 77 parses file in an insecure way after fuzzing it. Their original programmer is long gone. They are not going to rewrite it anytime soon. Sticking it in a VM may be their best option. You are not there to engineer a malware to break their systems. You are their to tell them what's wrong and how to fix it in the cheapest way possible. Threats from phishing, ransomware, and poorly implemented BYOD policies are a lot more dangerous to most companies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Offensive Security is a great option. For pen testing specifically: [https://www.offensive-security.com/information-security- trai...](https://www.offensive-security.com/information-security- training/penetration-testing-training-kali-linux/)

You should know stuff like basic TCP/IP _before_ you hop into any technical side of security.

</comment><comment><USER5> The really serious way:

Go to Carnegie Mellon. While getting a BS in CS, be active in a student group called Plaid Parliament of Pwning. Finally, send me some sort of resume.

<comment><USER3> putting aside CMU (a lot of people wouldn't be able to get into it), what would you recommend for someone getting a Software Engineering degree to get into low level security ?

<comment><USER5> Pick a school that uses a low-level language. C is great. Java, Python, Javascript, and Scheme are all bad.

Take the courses that involve writing compilers and operating systems.

Do a project that involves writing an emulator, perhaps for one of the things DD-WRT runs on. You could start from MAME or Qemu, or do the whole thing from nothing.

Write a boot sector for the demo scene. For example, recently somebody wrote a PAC-MAN clone to run in 512 bytes.

Solve a DEFCON CTF problem. They are difficult puzzles, so try several. Learn to use Ghidra (free) or a similar tool. Freeware and demo versions are available for IDA Pro, Hopper Disassembler, and Binary Ninja.

<comment><USER3> Thank you very much for taking the time to reply on my question.

I'd love to hear about more lowlevel security projects I can do, as I feel that would help me learn the most.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Tons of resources here: [https://github.com/trimstray/the-book-of-secret- knowledge](https://github.com/trimstray/the-book-of-secret-knowledge)

Best courses froms Sans here: [https://www.sans.org/](https://www.sans.org/)

Old doesn't mean outdated, old is usually foundation. Do you want to learn or next-next-hack?

</comment><comment><USER7> I would suggest YouTube videos of security conference talks

<comment><USER8> Good luck with that. :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> overthewire.org</comment>


Google TV, Usability Not Included - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/technology/personaltech/18pogue.html

<comment><USER2> Does this line make sense?:

 _On the great timeline of television history, Google TV takes an enormous step in the wrong direction: toward complexity._

Is he suggesting that TV has gotten less complex over time and Google is going against that trend? Because the number of wires coming out the back of my TV, the number of boxes attached to it, the number of channels, the number of people I pay money to for TV shows, the number of ways to pay for and watch a show, the size and number of keys on my remote(s) all seem to have been heading towards complexity for a long, long time.

Wasn't setting the time on your VCR the traditional standard anecdote about the complexity of technology for about a decade?</comment>


Neutral vs. Opinionated Platforms - <AUTHOR> https://www.maven.video/c/maven/rkWyU5sEtg <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable video-essay on trolling and the complicity of content platforms</comment>


Ask HN: Beginners guide to stacks and heaps? - <AUTHOR>

I've tried to find a good introduction to stacks and heaps online, but most of them are either incomplete or too difficult to follow. Is there any relation between memory heaps and the heap data structure? How are the stack and the heap related? Also, I have an idea of what garbage collection is, but how does garbage collection work in practice? Thanks for your help. <comment><USER2> The stack includes scratch-pad memory that is temporarily allocated for local variables. The heap is 'permanent' memory that hangs around beyond function calls.

Advantages of the stack: you don't have to explicitly ask for it, it's allocated automatically for you, and you don't have to worry about releasing it. Exiting from a function magically frees it up.

Disadvantage of the stack: the size of the stack is limited, and since it only exists while you are in a function, the data vanishes after you exit the function.

Advantages of the heap: The amount of memory you can acquire is huge, only limited by the total size of virtual memory in your system. Also, this memory remains allocated as long as you want.

Disadvantages of the heap: you have to explicitly ask for heap memory, and you have to remember to release it, otherwise you get memory leaks. If you ask for a lot of small lumps of memory, you can get fragmentation.

In higher-level languages, you don't have to worry about releasing memory. The OS figures out when you don't need it anymore, and releases it for you. (That's my understanding of garbage collection).</comment>


Show HN: A modern BASIC-like teaching and learning programming language - <AUTHOR> https://easylang.online/ide/ <comment><USER2> This is awesome - I just started looking for something like this, for my kid.

Having taught programming before, one thing that many people find confusing at first is using "=" for both assignment and equality; statements like "x = x + 1" make no sense as a math equation.

I think supporting (but not requiring) "let" (or equivalently "make" or "set") helps go over that hump, although I last taught basic to someone 30 years ago... e.g., if you accept

        let a = 3

or

        make a = 3

makes it a little easier to grok

        let x = x + 1

(although the x on the left is "now" and the x on the right is "before"). Alternatively, using something like "x <\- x + 1" is much clearer, and just as clear for "x <\- 3" (especially with a right font or glyph). Unfortunately, there is no single ascii character/glyph that intuitively conveys assignment; K uses ':' which is ok, Pascal uses ':=', neither of which is good for Basic and the like, I think.

<comment><AUTHOR> The assignment with a "let" would probably be really easier to understand. On the other hand, in most programming languages today, assignment is done with the "equal" symbol. This makes the code less noisy. Since the comparison operator is only used for "while" or "if", the risk of confusion is not so great.

<comment><USER3> As a C programmer, the idea that comparisons are only made in loops or ifs is very alien.

Something like

        const bool press = (evt->flags & EVT_FLAG_PRESS) != 0;

is common, idiomatic and nice in my world (for some made-up key event handler).

<comment><USER4> I deal with similar code, although for me, "!= 0" is usually discouraged; I would just use the result of & in a condition later, or if it must be turned into 0 and 1, the "booleanise" operator:

        const bool press = !!(evt->flags & EVT_FLAG_PRESS);

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nice timing. Last week I made a very simple BASIC compiler to show my undergrad students how to make a compiler: [https://github.com/AZHenley/teenytinycompiler](https://github.com/AZHenley/teenytinycompiler)

The write-up is coming in a few days.

<comment><USER6> It's a great assignment. We do almost the same exact assignment in my Emerging Languages class (the grammar is almost identical). We write an interpreter for a version of TinyBASIC called NanoBASIC in Swift.

<comment><USER5> Nice! Yep, I started with the Tiny BASIC grammar but modified it to look a bit more modern and to be easy to extend for more complex expressions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Love this! Reminds me of my first attempts at programming on a ZX Spectrum when I was 5 or so.

It's hard to beat the simplicity and immediacy of writing a few lines of code and having a simple physics simulation (the bouncing ball example here). I can see this being extremely popular and useful to kids!

<comment><USER8>
      Thank you for your work.  When trying to teach my child basic coding concepts along with their math homework, the barrier often is the IDE.

      The web-based staring point is incredibly useful.  Fire up the web browser and show the math example is excellent.   I have started using the web-based Pyret with my 9-year-old.   As we do her math, we mirror the math and geometry problems and solve them in the browser environment. The simplicity to code, run, eval is key.

[https://www.pyret.org](https://www.pyret.org)

I will give Easylang a try on her next set of problems. Strong Work!

<comment><USER9> Paragraphs quoted like this are unreadable. Please don't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a great idea!

I wonder, though, if it would be easier if you avoided computerese in your naming? Keywords like "func", "subr", and "str_chars" are part of what makes people's heads spin when they first look at code. If they were just named "function", and "subroutine", and "character_string" (or just "string" or "characters") it would be a little harder to type, but much much easier to read. And you know what they say – you'll read a lot more code than you write.

Other than that, this looks really nice. Nice work!

<comment><AUTHOR> For example, "func" is also used in other programming languages. I think frequently used keywords should be shorter. It is then less to type and IMO the code is then also more readable.

<comment><USER11> Yeah but the point here is to introduce people to programming concepts and using 'plain English' words reduces a little friction for people.

<comment><AUTHOR> Young people quickly find abbreviations for things they often write: BTW, LOL, IMHO... So it should be no problem to understand "func" as "function".

<comment><USER12> Just allow BOTH. In the documented examples shown print the whole word like FUNCTION. But also allow it to be abbreviated to FUNC, FUNCT or FUNCTIO!

<comment><AUTHOR> I generally don't think this is a good idea. However, it does exist in easylang: _pr_ is an abbreviation for _print_ and the dot is one for _end_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This reminds me of Logo: [https://turtleacademy.com//lessons](https://turtleacademy.com//lessons) Logo was invented in 1967

<comment><USER14> Python also has a Logo-like Turtle graphics module in the standard library:

[https://docs.python.org/3.3/library/turtle.html?highlight=tu...](https://docs.python.org/3.3/library/turtle.html?highlight=turtle)

<comment><USER15> It's used in the book _Think Python_ by Allen Downey.

[https://greenteapress.com/wp/think- python-2e/](https://greenteapress.com/wp/think-python-2e/)

(Case Study: interface design [http://greenteapress.com/thinkpython2/html/thinkpython2005.h...](http://greenteapress.com/thinkpython2/html/thinkpython2005.html))

The book is very good for first-time learners IMHO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is very similar to a Mac app I created called SeaTurtle—seems a mesh between BASIC and Logo brings back a kind of nostalgia in people who want to teach programming to kids that learned it in the '80s: [https://oaksnow.com/seaturtle/](https://oaksnow.com/seaturtle/)

</comment><comment><USER16> What's the advantage of this over BASIC?

</comment><comment><USER17> Just tried it out, here's a little program that plots a fractal: [https://bit.ly/3a5MfaV](https://bit.ly/3a5MfaV) (shortened the url since it's quite long containing all the code)

Few comments:

\- It would be nice to have a proper full reference of the language (maybe it exists but I couldn't find it), with all details put together in one document. I had to dig through tons of tutorials just to see how floats are defined.

\- How do you add comments in the code?...

\- The editor removes empty lines - so if you try to separate logical blocks/paragraphs you can't do it. This coupled with lack of comment support hurts code readability. Maybe it could collapse >1 empty lines to just 1 empty line inside.

\- Defining floats: if you have a program that deals with both floats and has int-based for loops, you can't use "floatvars" if I understand correctly. Now, having to add "#" as a suffix for each float variable greatly hurts readability since you now have lines like "z# = x# * x# + y# * y#"

\- Editor - tries to be too smart at times which hurts basic editing functionality like undo; if I add a line and type something, the cmd-z doesn't remove that line, it only removes text in the line. Also, if I type something syntactically wrong, the editor first tries to format/transform the code and only then shows an error but doesn't then return the code to what it looked like; this makes it hard to fix errors.

\- Re: editor, why just not use a mature engine like CodeMirror? (and add your own syntax highlighting / hints, etc)

\- Why all those "." instead of "end" in loops/ifs inside functions? This is not explained anywhere and looks a bit obscure in tutorials

\- Color system with 000-999: a lot of boilerplate to deal with it, troublesome to create palettes and it's only 10 bits of color. Might be helpful to have a color function that takes three separate ints (or even floats 0.0-1.0, opengl-style).

But generally, kudos, good job :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Well done, I'm impressed.

You raised some important and also some sore points.

@documentation: there is still some work to be done. The tutorial "Code snippets" contains most things.

@comments, empty lines: lines beginning with # are comments. Empty lines are not possible, but empty comment lines.

@floats and ints: by default variables are integer and floats are marked with #. With _floatvars_ variables are floats and integer are marked with % - as in some BASIC variants.

@editor: this is a bit strict, but with beginners the concept works quite well. On enter, the code is parsed down to the current line and returned "correctly" formatted. Unfortunately "undo" does not work well.

@end: the dot is quickly typed and also makes the code more clear (a bit like in Python) - since the dot seems strange to many people, I added _end_ as an alternative.

@color: these 3 digit numbers are short, and sufficient for most cases and more flexible than color names. There are also built-ins to fine-tune the colors (0.0-1.0) ( _color_red_ , ...)

[https://easylang.online/apps/mandelbrot.html](https://easylang.online/apps/mandelbrot.html)

<comment><USER17> Thanks! (I definitely missed a few points due to lack of documentation)

One last question I forgot to mention - is there a 'mod' function/operator? (like %, %=)?

<comment><AUTHOR> It is _mod_ as in BASIC (print 7 mod 3).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Nice! I love the re-invention of Logo-like textual languages. Just a few days ago I came across MOOSE language, used by Amy Bruckman in her online community. A lost art it seems.

</comment><comment><USER19> Not sure I would use `print` if I was redesigning it. But, of course, its ingrained in countless languages.

<comment><USER20> May I ask why? To me print is one of the loveliest, most intuitive of concepts in BASIC. I'm guessing it's because there's normally no actual printer involved? Maybe replace it with "text" or something?

<comment><USER19> Just because there's no printer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Neat, thanks for making & sharing!

</comment><comment><USER22> looks like modern version of Logo programming language.

<comment><USER2> Of Basic. One of the example implements turtle graphics (but logo is much more Lispy than basic)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> What about compile to LLVM bitcode?

<comment><AUTHOR> It runs in the browser where the code is currently interpreted. I have already thought about compiling "fast functions" to WASM byte code.</comment></comment>


The Important of Task Management - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@findbridge/the-importance-of-task-management-76e88fc120ac#.gblo31l3r <comment><USER2> tl;dr : "I use Trello and it works for me."</comment>


Why the Jones Supreme Court Ruling on GPS Tracking Is Worse Than It Sounds - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/why-the-jones-supreme-court-ruling-on-gps-tracking-is-worse-than-it-sounds/251838/ <comment><USER2> It is interesting to see various Constitutional Law Professors and pundits discuss Sotomayor's role. Compare what Rebecca Rosen says here with what Jonathan Turley says here [http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/23/supreme-court- unanimous...](http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/23/supreme-court-unanimously- rejects-obama-administrations-effort-to-conduct-warrantless-gps-searches/) or what Orin Kerr says in many posts but especially here: [http://volokh.com/2012/01/23/why-did-justice-sotomayor- join-...](http://volokh.com/2012/01/23/why-did-justice-sotomayor-join-scalias- majority-opinion-in-jones/)

Also interesting the comparisons of the roles and opinions of Alito and Scalia.

Another relevant article is this one: [http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/homeland-security- su...](http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/homeland-security- surveillance/)

Homeland Security wants technology to persistently spy on 4 square miles (of city) at a time, with automated, real time, motion detection."

Think about that and whose Jones opinion you prefer....

<comment><USER3> Another good comment is by Paul Ohm on Freedom to Tinker

[https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/paul/united-states-v- jone...](https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/paul/united-states-v-jones-near- optimal-result)

<comment><USER4> Great analysis by Paul Ohm. I love his summary of Sotomayor's separate concurring opinion: "Wow. And Amen. Set your stopwatches: the death watch for the third-party doctrine has finally begun."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's another important reason that the Jones case is not as good as it sounds. The Court only partially decides whether the government can engage in GPS tracking without a warrant.

In order to determine whether the government violates the 4th Amendment, the Court must answer two questions. (1) Did the government activity (i.e., attaching GPS tracker to a car) qualify as a "search" or "seizure"? (2) If so, was the search or seizure reasonable?

In the Jones case, the Court ONLY answered the first question, because the government based its entire case on the argument that attaching a GPS tracker is not a search. The Court found that attaching a GPS tracker to a car does indeed qualify as a search, but did not determine under what circumstances it might be reasonable to conduct such a search without a warrant. So, in a future case, the court might determine that it is reasonable to search (i.e., attach a GPS tracker) without a warrant because, for example, the car might be moved before the warrant could be approved. In fact, it is already the case that cars can be searched without warrants in many cases where houses, personal belongings, etc. cannot be.

(Note that the Court uses the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" extensively, but this actually has nothing to do with the reasonableness of the search. It only determines whether a search occurred.)

<comment><USER6> _In fact, it is already the case that cars can be searched without warrants in many cases where houses, personal belongings, etc. cannot be._

Can you provide what these specific instances are? AFAIK, the police can't go into your trunk without a warrant. They also can't open your locked glovebox (I don't know how a closed one got away). The only thing they can do is visually inspect your car through the window.

<comment><USER7> I'm not a con law scholar, but I think he's referring to Carroll v US and subsequent ruling, summarized on Wikipedia here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception> .

<comment><USER5> Yep.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Math.random() in v8 is not very random - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@betable/tifu-by-using-math-random-f1c308c4fd9d <comment><USER2> Math.random() is not intended be a _good_ source of random -- it's essentially expected to be on par with C's rand(), although IIRC most implementations are better.

There are APIs for cryptographically secure random numbers, but Math.random() is not it.

<comment><USER3> There's a difference between cryptographic security and quality. Cryptographically secure generators typically have (empirically verified) high quality from a statistical perspective, but they're not a general solution for all purposes. They're relatively slow, you can't seed them, and they don't typically have rigorous mathematical proofs of certain characteristics like equidistribution and cycle length.

The article doesn't suggest Math.random() should be cryptographically secure (although that is an option). Rather, it's a critique of the algorithm that's being used. There are better algorithms with no drawbacks that produce sequences you can safely assume have a statistically random distribution (even if the sequence is predictable and is therefore not cryptographically secure).

<comment><USER2> True, but there's also no requirement for quality -- the webkit/javascriptcore rng is a trivially simple generator, with no real statistical analysis performed -- back in the day i ddi some rudimentary testing (simple things like the birthday and pi tests) -- the only real reason you could get away with it in this use case would be that it use a separate ring for every page, and those rngs are seeded from "true" random on every load.</comment></comment></comment>


Pew: Almost half of Americans want to live somewhere else - <AUTHOR> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2009-01-29-where-we-live_N.htm <comment><USER2> "The grass is always greener on the other side"</comment>


What's behind rich people pretending to be self-made? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/29/rich-people-wealth-america <comment><USER2> I was maybe a little too excited to read "When to Jump" ([https://www.amazon.com/When-Jump-Have-Isnt- Life/dp/125012421...](https://www.amazon.com/When-Jump-Have-Isnt- Life/dp/1250124212)) about taking a big risk in making a major career/life change against perhaps the wishes and/or expectations of your family, friends, colleagues, society, etc from an author I hadn't heard of before (but somehow got Sheryl Sandberg to write the forward for and Reid Hoffman to endorse) who left a cushy VC/finance job to travel around the world to play squash for 2 years.

After doing a little more research, I found that the author grew up in a wealthy east coast family, is a close blood relative to Sheryl Sandberg, went to an Ivy League school (likely aided by privileged upbringing and family connections), landed at a prestigious finance/VC firm straight from college (probably made possible again by an Ivy league pedigree/family connection), and could easily make the "jump" to doing something that paid nil for 2 years due to this enormous safety net of family wealth that most people simply don't have.

If there's one thing about the Travis Kalanick saga I wish the media would've told is that he is a rare successful founder who legitimately grew up in a middle class family and struggled for many years post-college trying to get to ramen-profitability on a series of failing startups before hitting it big. This is strictly in contract to the Zucks and Spiegels of the world who grew up very wealthy and went to the best schools and could take on the big risks associated with entrepreneurship because if everything failed they still had that big safety net to fall back on.

<comment><USER3> I participated in at the time a no name incubator on the east coast(decade ago). Only one of the ten companies got funding and its founder had offers already going into the incubator. Offers all from his rich VC father's other wealthy friends.

I'd love to see a list of all the successful founders who came from extreme poverty. Middle class startuppers have one or two shots at it if they live at home with a relative. The rich kids can keep trying and learning from their mistakes until well they become richer.

Such is life.

<comment><USER2> Makes you wonder how different the world might be if society provided a similar safety net for aspiring entrepreneurs (at least psychologically) as coming from a wealthy family.

<comment><USER4> Well, this exists in most of Western Europe right? They do have entrepreneurs (and I'm not talking solely VC-funded startups here) but I've read that at times there's some cultural issues with 'going above your station' (thinking maybe Scandinavia). Maybe some of our European founders could detail that a bit more.

<comment><USER5> Dane here, but I have literally no idea what you mean by 'going above your station'.

<comment><USER4> Tall poppy syndrome, being moderate (lagom in Sweden?). Basically, things people have said on here or I've heard elsewhere that the cultural psyche is a bit different than the more individualistic American one, at least in terms of business. That sort of thing is what I was getting at.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've met my share of "self made" people who when self-classifying as such, ignore things like:

* Well-off parents who funded their education, allowing them to start off without the huge debt ball-and-chain most of us start off with.

* Well-off family who can act as a safety net / backstop for failed risk-taking. Baseball is easy if you can keep swinging until you hit the ball.

* Well-connected family or friends who helped with that critical first job, which often can set an entire career's trajectory.

* Pre-populated contact list of well-off or well-connected people, drawn from family or Ivy league classmates.

I don't think you can honestly call yourself self-made with these advantages.

<comment><USER7> I get your point but where do you draw the line? It seems pretty subjective. Who truly starts off with nothing?

EDIT: spelling

<comment><USER8> > Who truly starts off with nothing?

No one; everyone starts off in a particular social context with a particular set of assets and opportunities and limitations.

There's no need to draw a line; there's no valid binary classification here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My experience, having dealt with successful people who were also born rich, is that they often legitimately feel that they are self-made. Because the truth is that no matter how privileged you are, you do still have to put the work in if you want to be successful. It is true that rich people have much better safety nets, but being successful will always take at least some level of hard work.

It's difficult to have the perspective it takes to admit that your success may be more due to a privileged starting position and luck than solely the hard work, especially when it's so easy to claim all your success is self-made and the hero worship of self made people in the United States

<comment><USER10> I attended a talk hosted by a wealthy founder who was born into privilege, and he said something like this: "Startups are really hard. You need to use every card that you've been dealt in order to succeed."

<comment><USER11> That's what meritocracy is, really. It's a system that rewards the most physically fit, the most genetically endowed, the people with the most resource rich support system, etc.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, but the fact that we're conditioned to think that a non level playing field is bad no matter what (vs a societal expectation that those with the most must give back the most), asking with a fetishistic of monetary success, really warps our outward facing behavior.

<comment><USER12> > the people with the most resource rich support system, etc.

I'm not sure you even realize, but that's the exact opposite of the definition of meritocracy.

<comment><USER11> No that is what a meritocracy is as we have it, and it is broken.

Meritocracy rewards those who do the most. But those who can do the most are those who are the most well endowed.

This is separate from an even more perverse system where those who don't do the most are rewarded the most.

<comment><USER12> I'm not gonna go ahead and paste a dictionary definition here, but a meritocracy is structured on talent and ability __as opposed __to class privilege or wealth.

I believe you are misunderstanding the definition of a meritocracy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My favorite quote on the topic comes from Arnold Schwarzenegger, arguably one of the most self-made people you can find. He said:

"I am not a self-made man.

Every time I give a speech at a business conference, or speak to college students, or do a Reddit AMA, someone says it.

"Governor/Governator/Arnold/Arnie/Schwarzie/Schnitzel (depending on where I am), as a self-made man, what's your blueprint for success?"

They're always shocked when I thank them for the compliment but say, "I am not a self-made man. I got a lot of help."

<comment><USER14> In Japan, we call him Shuwa-chan.

<comment><USER15> where do they have the best okonomiyaki? :)

<comment><USER14> Off topic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> jim-jim-jim "When a man tells you he got rich through hard work, ask him 'whose?'"

</comment><comment><USER16> I've come to realize that hard work is not what we get paid to do from 9-5 each working day, but what we choose to do with our spare time that either improves or degrades our position in life.

And it is the thousands of choices from early years through middle age that separate those with rarified skills and high wages from those with common skills and envy for their higher paid, lesser working (now) friends.

It does not matter where you start. When you spend most of your life studying or smoking dope, the end is predictable.

<comment><USER17> The problems we face today are not explained by the difference between studying or smoking dope. There's something more pernicious involved.

Yes, if you smoke dope all the time your outcomes in life will probably be worse than if you study some "rarified" skill, to borrow your phrase.

But studying takes resources, and time, and those are bought through money and social connections and luck. And increasingly, despite what we read about MOOCs and the new educational order, it doesn't matter if we study and learn, what matters is that we have a certificate of studying, a placeholder. And those placeholders are not the same as our knowledge, or one's ability to learn, and are subject to corruption and greasing like every other placeholder.

And in the end, what does this say about how much value we should place on that rarified skill? Does our society really allocate financial reward according to _actual_ value? Does Amazon really improve my life _that_ much compared to the plumber or electrician who fixed my house? Is Facebook a net benefit to society? If it disappeared tomorrow, would nothing replace it? Could our healthcare be delivered under a different provider structure? Do I pay my ISP because it's the best of many choices, or because it's acceptable enough to not go without internet access? Is Amazon successful _because of Bezos in particular_? If Bezos was going around spouting all the ideas in his head, marshaling an army of imaginary workers, without any actual labor, would we still have Amazon?

The point of this article is it's trivial to point out that hard work should and often is compensated. The problem is that the compensation structures in many fields are completely absurd in many cases relative to the actual value created.

<comment><USER18> I grew up in the ghetto. While my friends smoked dope, I studied with free resources from the local library. All the books were old and outdated, but I didn't care. The drive to learn and improve is still with me today.

<comment><USER12> >I grew up in the ghetto. While my friends smoked dope, I studied with free resources from the local library. All the books were old and outdated, but I didn't care. The drive to learn and improve is still with me today.

And thousands of others did the exact same but didn't make it out. That's the entire point of this conversation. Hard work isn't a sufficient condition. If it were tons of people would easily make it out. But instead it's a lot of luck along with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If my skill is common, it doesn't matter how much physical energy I expend, I probably won't make much because the supply of labor is high.

If it was easy to be a hedge fund manager, more people would do it. It's easy to cherry pick these professions that seem overpaid, but in a free market, people tend to make what the market values them at.

You could say that teachers are so important that they should be paid more and in a free market education system they might be paid differently than they are now.

<comment><USER20> Or maybe certain professions have a limited number of openings, which tend to go to people with connections, and cooincidentally these professions deal with large amounts of money, so taking 1% commission on a hundred million dollar deal for very little work seems reasonable.

<comment><USER21> So why assume hedge fund managers get their jobs through "connections" but professional basketball players don't?

<comment><USER22> Because there are more people who have the technical skills to run hedge funds than there are hedge funds. You fill the manager role with someone you're comfortable with on many levels.

OTOH, professional sports leagues are about winning intense competition, and skill is much more important. Even then, coaches and owners play favorites.

It's not a binary system, it's a spectrum, and professional sports are towards one end of the spectrum and hedge fund management and VC founding are towards the other end.

<comment><USER19> Exactly. We're social creatures and relationships matter.

<comment><USER23> The part people miss is that relationships rarely expand at random. They're local and koinophilia (liking alike) plays a huge role.

Even if J. Random put all their training into building and managing relationships it would likely not amount to anything of note. (They will have fewer resources and be excluded from some social circles.)

There are many necessary components of huge success.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Does anyone really think that a CEO, whose pay is on average 271 times > greater than that of his typical worker, works 271 times harder than his > employees, who might actually be doing strenuous physical labor?

I'm not against the general mindset the author is telling, but this garbage thought process needs to stop. This isn't about working harder, but smarter and you can easily provide 271 times more value through decisions that higher ups are tasked with than a bottom level individual contributor.

                 ***Anecdotal***

The top level people at my company are making decisions daily that govern multi-million dollar investments which can be vastly beneficial or detrimental to our profitability. When working on investments that large in size, marginal improvements on decision making provide huge sums of value which somewhat justify the pay.

Now, are these people self made? That's more open to debate but every C*O and SVP has been with the company for at least 10 years and most VPs also have also been here for that long/have an amazing track record. You generally don't get 10+ years of promotions providing nothing.

<comment><USER25> There have been many studies surrounding CEOs.[1] A large portion of them keep showing that a bad CEO is worse than no CEO, an average CEO likely isn't actually doing anything, and a good CEO is probably just lucky. This topic has been researched and had the data poured over to the ends of the earth to find that "special CEO sauce". The reality? There is likely a tiny subset of all CEOs that are actually worth 271 times what the typical worker is making (Steve Jobs comes to mind). That subset of actual talented visionary CEOs is probably a ridiculously small number (eg 1% of CEOs in a global pool). The rest of the time it's just a good ol' boys club for the already rich. [1] an example [https://hbr.org/2015/11/are-successful-ceos-just- lucky](https://hbr.org/2015/11/are-successful-ceos-just-lucky)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> IME, most people want to craft a narrative that lets them feel OK about themselves without too much introspection. If their lives are good, they'll take credit for their fortune like the people in the article. If their lives are bad, they'll blame everyone but themselves.

I've made a small jump in socio-economic class, and I try and keep it in perspective. I try and remember the bits of help I got a long the way. And at the same time I'm trying to let go of my resentment about people whose parents set them up with cars, tuition and house deposits - because one day I hope to be that parent.

<comment><USER27> Why not be a better parent and citizen than that, instead if spoiling your children?

<comment><USER26> Biology I suppose

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Shame.

Especially now that social responsibility has decoupled from privilege.

Such duty and stewardship helped justify and bring balance to their privilege in days past. No longer.

<comment><USER28> Well, we don't know if they are philanthropic or not, but they seem to be conflicted about their wealth. It's not so much them, but how much value our society puts on money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> In reading the reactions to the article, it seems like most of HN is onto the game: Feign poverty.

That said, whom are some people that really did 'make it' from rags to riches? What can we learn from them? I'll start:

Andrew Carnegie

Jack London

George Soros

Larry Ellison

Ursula Burns

Ingvar Kamprad

JK Rowling

Sam Walton

Oprah

The only thing that I can think of that all of them had in common was that they were really hard workers that got lucky. That hard work was the price of the lotto ticket. What am I missing here?

</comment><comment><USER30> It's not just pretending to be self made most of them run sham charities and universally lie about their own charity giving too.

I'll never give to a rich pricks charity knowing what I know now.

<comment><USER11> Do they just raise funds but not disburse effectively?

<comment><USER31> It seems common for "personal" charities to have really high overhead. A typical cause would be that highly paid executives are actually family members with little commitment to the stated purposes of the charities.

<comment><USER32> Or they deliver services directly to those executives. Particularly egregious example:

[https://nypost.com/2016/10/02/bill-clintons-executive- suite-...](https://nypost.com/2016/10/02/bill-clintons-executive-suite-is-a- private-pad-above-165m-library/)

(the story goes that back when executive compensation was highly taxed in the first part of the 20th century, many companies took out services for their executives which were tax free advantages. Things like yachts. Walt Disney is famous for building out a business for exactly that sort of thing : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_33](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_33) )

<comment><USER33> Not that egregious considering

> Clinton isn't the only former president to include a residence in his > library. George H.W. Bush's library at Texas A&M University in College > Station and Jimmy Carter's in Atlanta both have them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> To be fair, people are not born with a built-in frame of reference. I used to think I was good at math due to hard work/dedication but I have since met people who worked far harder than me and still were not nearly as good at math. It works the same way with money and pretty much everything. Good- looking people think they are charming, naturally athletic people think they train harder, etc. It's just what it is.

</comment><comment><USER35> This article implicitly assumes that intensity/amount of labour should translate directly into income. Dunno why it should, but it would be interesting to think of what the world would be like if that were truly manifested in reality. I wish upon all these socialist academics that they could live in such a world as they thoughtlessly describe/claim to desire.

<comment><USER14> The article doesn't implicitly assume that at all. You seem to have missed the entire point.

<comment><USER36> From the article:

> Meanwhile, few who make the "I did it all myself" argument question the > absurdity of seeing earnings as a measure of grit and moral worth. Does > anyone really think that a CEO, whose pay is on average 271 times greater > than that of his typical worker, works 271 times harder than his employees, > who might actually be doing strenuous physical labor?

<comment><USER14> Exactly. Rather than "implicitly assuming" one thing, it quite explicitly states the opposite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Where is the line between transferring property and transferring advantage?

</comment><comment><USER38> What's with clueless authors and confirmation bias?

</comment><comment><USER36> One's (monetary) value isn't defined by one's amount or intensity of labor, but rather by the value _lost_ should one be removed from the equation. Factory workers can be replaced by virtually anyone else (and often by machines) while Hedge Fund traders / managers often cannot.

While algorithms are increasingly prevalent in Wall Street, at the end of the day there's a human who either writes them or reads their output before making a decision, and that person is not easily replaceable.

Beyond that, for every successful Hedge Fund there are countless that failed catastrophically, so any analysis of "how much a Hedge Fund manager makes" is subject to severe survivorship bias. [0]

The disparity between the CEO of a public company and its hordes of workers is even clearer. Very few people possess the combination of skills that make a high-caliber CEO successful, which is why very few people are rewarded like them. LeBron James also doesn't work 1,000 times harder than a factory worker.

Finally, it's worth remembering that 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation, and a stunning 90% by the third. [1] I wouldn't lose any sleep over rich kids who feel troubled about their "entitlement".

[0] [https://xkcd.com/1827/](https://xkcd.com/1827/)

[1] [http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose- wealth/](http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/)

<comment><USER39> I'd have to disagree with your point about CEO's having rare skills. CEOs appear to not be rated against anything. you have giant failures like Yahoo under Mayer or the executives at Toys R Us giving themselves bonuses as they are going through bankruptcy. Instead of not getting compensated for their failure they are getting amounts of money that most Americans could retire in.

When the business does well people say it's due to the CEO, but when they fail people argue about how bad it might have been. There's no way to know. It seems more like a scam vs investors or employees than some measurements skill that actually merits compensation

<comment><USER40> We don't know how Yahoo would've done under someone else. It could've been much worse.

It's perfectly possible Mayer did unique work that paid her compensation and much more in savings. Without the counterfactual, we cannot judge her.

<comment><USER39> This is exactly the argument I am talking about. It's fine that we can't judge CEOs, but then why are they taking home millions of dollars?

If we can't judge them for failures then we shouldn't be able to judge them for successes as well and they shouldn't be able to pull out the "rare skills" argument

<comment><USER36> They are taking home millions of dollars because the owners of those companies want to pay them as much, and they have the final say over how much to pay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Oh please HN, stop posting articles that are 100% political theory without a single link to tech.

At the least, please create a category for naked politics. No, hide doesnt work very well (multiple devices, times out, etc).

One time a mod told me that articles with no link to tech got deleted. That really doesn't appear to be the. This is yet another capitalist vs communist (literally, the labor theory of value was a Marx thing) diatribe that has no relation to the tech oriented stuff many came here for. There are plenty of other political sites for stuff like this.

I often wonder, if you could vote down stories, these would probably have a severe split and maybe not make the front page or stay there. Only being able to upvote let's a small contingent push something up (just ask the bitcoin people).

<comment><USER8> If you think it's off-topic, then click "flag" and move on.

<comment><USER41> I did. And hid it. Now I'll just have to hide it everywhere else, and ignore when it comes up looking through through old articles and search results.

Just because you can flag isn't carte blanche to post anything. I like the site much better (and I'm sure many others too) when it stays in its technical oriented wheelhouse.

<comment><USER8> > Just because you can flag isn't carte blanche to post anything

Just because you have certain preferences isn't carte blanche to launch off- topic diatribes in threads on articles that don't adhere to them about how you prefer HN should be focussed.

> I like the site much better (and I'm sure many others too) when it stays in > its technical oriented wheelhouse.

That is neither the official focus [0] nor, evidently—from what the community submits and keeps on the front page—the consensus of the community.

[0] From the guidelines: "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." Obviously, whether any particular article meets they standard is subjective, which is why we have upvotes and flags and algorithms taking them and other factors (e.g., the flamewsr detector) into account.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos asks Twitter to release his data - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2016/08/27/breitbarts-milo-yiannopoulos-asks-twitter-to-release-his-data-in-bid-to-have-suspension-lifted/ <comment><USER2> Before all the commenting stuff starts--remember folks, the strength of a person's or a company's integrity is seen most honestly when the circumstances are distasteful.

If Twitter actually is serious about user data rights, they'll give what they have back to the toad.</comment>


Ask HN: Help me make a decision - <AUTHOR>

$125K (incl. bonus, stock) - company A
$150K (base, stock options based on performance) - company B
company A is a large well respected hightech company (~200B market cap)
company B is a growing, recognizable but not a well recognized or popular, low employee satisfaction hightech company (~2B market cap)
similar job profile for both
growth is mostly self driven but maybe more challenging in B due to culture
company culture - A has significant advantage over B
which would you accept? <comment><USER2> The travel you mention in the thread is more significant than anything else you've talked about in the post.

A job with 75% travel basically puts the rest of your life on hold - significant other, relationships with friends, etc. It's harder to stick to proper fitness and diet when traveling so much. You've got to deal with all that travel-related stress (ugh, airports). And business travel tends to get old and boring really, really fast.

Given all that, company B is the winner - although personally, I wouldn't take that job either. Even 25% work-related travel is a pain in the ass.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agree on the travel part. I am fine with 25% travel. I think its a good balance. Plus, if you want to climb the leadership/management ladder, cant escape travel much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Company A, without a doubt. Culture matters a whole lot. And the experience of seeing how one of the behemoths does it from the inside, good and bad, is valuable. (Don't have any info about your job history; this last point could be less important if you've already had that experience.)

<comment><AUTHOR> yes, this is what is drawing me to A. But it also involves 75% travel compared to 20-25% at B.

EDIT: I typed 7% earlier instead of 75

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> 1.

It appears very hypothetical situation...but for a given data, I can always almost say that Company A will NEVER pay less in total package than Company B for the same job role (assuming its the same as you have not provided any data for it...)

It's like saying... Faecbook will pay less than Zynga for an in demand SE. They will surely match offer of Company B if they want you.

2\. Culture is extremely important not just to grow but to work every day and leave home satisfied.

3\. Travel is personal choice.

Best of Luck! Nash, [http://joday.com](http://joday.com)

<comment><AUTHOR> I assure you its not hypothetical.

You would be wrong to assume large companies beat every other offer. Large companies rarely beat other offers. Even Google does not do it unless you are a rock star.

Also I never pitched them against each other ... I dont see that as a professional behavior, I negotiate separately. But I agree I did not do a good job of negotiating with A, maybe I was starstruck

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Your wording is a bit unclear. Are you saying B would challenge you more, or that personal growth would be challenging to attain at B? Are you saying that B's base = 150k and that your stock goes on top, or that base + your estimate of how many stock options you'd get = 150k?

Another important factor that's often not considered is how long your commute is to A and B.

<comment><AUTHOR> personal growth would be challenging to attain at B because the culture is sure to throw hurdles in the way.

B = 150K base + options (not yet awarded)

commute is not an issue in this case. thanks for bringing it up though

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Company A. I value personal growth and happiness over pay differences. And it seems like Company A will help me more base on what vague information is provided.

</comment><comment><USER7> Take B. Keep looking for a position at company like A or better and pays better or equal to B.

</comment><comment><USER8> Company B for sure! So I could pay off my mortgage faster :-).

<comment><AUTHOR> what about long term career prospects? Having A on resume is a huge+

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Company B. I believe there are more opportunities in future.

<comment><AUTHOR> true, but swimming against the tide can either pay off really well or bite you really hard

<comment><USER9> One important thing I would also add here. Think about your daily work in both companies: how valuable it is, how does it impact the company in general.

Right now I work in a huge corporation. The work I do is not THAT important. I mean, it's important, but if I ever decide to leave, that will not affect the company a lot. They will find another engineer and that's it. Such model is good for business, I guess. But, it's important that every employee feel how valuable they are. Not just feel, they should exactly know, that the work they do does really-really matter to a company. This is just imho.

<comment><AUTHOR> exactly! many people dont realize in big companies there are (relatively) very few people that matter. rest are just cogs in the machine. doesnt mean you can grow up from being a cog, but what you say is true.

B wants me badly. My skill set is very niche. B needs me to propel them forward and in a different scenario, thats a great situation to be in. But I am very hesitant of how motivated B is to transform to the next level.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Paul Tudor Jones on Failure - Speech to 9th graders - <AUTHOR> http://www.scribd.com/doc/16588637/Paul-Tudor-Jones-Failure-Speech-June-2009 <comment><USER2> For those of you who don't recognize the name -- Paul Tudor Jones is one of the most successful hedge fund managers of all time. He made most of his money trading commodities, but he now manages a massive multi-strategy, multi-asset class hedge fund.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hrm. This doesn't ring true to me; in fact, it seems almost more like a guy bragging about his victories than a helpful message about failure. It isn't true that every door closing is met with another one opening; nor is it true that every failure happens "for a reason." Sometimes failure is brutal, nasty, and not helpful. The real message about failure to remember is Theodore Roosevelt's: Yes, you might fail (and you will, for "there is no effort without error"), but the credit and honor is yours nevertheless, because you didn't hang back -- you got out there and gave it your all.

EDIT: (For anyone who might not know the T.R. quote, it's taken from his Sorbonne speech (in red on this page): <http://www.theodore- roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html>)

</comment><comment><USER4> PERFECT FAILURE

COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS TO GRADUATING CLASS OF THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL

June 10, 2009

When I was asked to give the commencement address to a graduating class of 9th graders, I jumped at the chance. You see, I have four teenagers of my own and I feel like this is the point in my life when I am supposed to tell them something profound. So thank you Buckley community for giving me this opportunity. I tried this speech out on them last night and am happy to report that none of them fell asleep until I was three quarters done.

When composing this message I searched my memory for my same experience back in 1969 when I was sitting right where you are. I realized that I could hardly remember one single speaker from my junior high or high school days. Now that could be my age. I'm old enough now that some days I can't remember how old I am. But it could also have been a sign of the times. Remember, I was part of the student rebellion, and we did not listen to anything that someone over 30 said because they were just too clueless. Or so we thought.

Anyway, as I sat there considering this speech further, I suddenly had a flashback of the one speaker who I actually did remember from youthful days. He was a Shakespearean actor who came to our school to extol the virtues of Shakespeare. He started out by telling us that Shakespeare was not about poetry or romance or love, but instead, was all about battle, and fighting and death and war. Then he pulled out a huge sword which he began waving over the top of his head as he described various bloody conflicts that were all part and parcel of Shakespeare's plays. Now being a 15-year old testosterone laden student at an all boys school, I thought this was pretty cool. I remember thinking, "Yea, this guy gets it. Forget about the deep meaning and messages in the words, let's talk about who's getting the blade."

As you can see, I have a similar sword which I am going to stop waving over my head now, because A) I think you are permanently scarred, and B) the headmaster looks like he is about to tackle me and C) some of you, I can tell, are way too excited about this sword, and you're scaring me a little.

I'm here with you young men today because your parents wanted me to speak to you about service—that is, serving others and giving back to the broader community for the blessings that you have received in your life. But that is a speech for a later time in your life. Don't get me wrong, serving others is really, really important. It truly is the secret to happiness in life. I swear to God. Money won't do it. Fame won't do it. Nor will sex, drugs, homeruns or high achievement. But now I am getting preachy.

Today, I want to talk to you about the dirtiest word that any of you 9th graders know. It's a word that is so terrible that your parents won't talk about it; your teachers won't talk about it; and you certainly don't ever want to dwell on it. But this is a preparatory school, and you need to be prepared to deal with this phenomenon because you will experience it. That is a guarantee. Every single one of you will experience it not once but multiple times, and every adult in this room has had to deal with this in its many forms and manifestations. It's the "F" word.

FAILURE. Failure that is so mortifying and so devastating that it makes you try to become invisible. It makes you want to hide your face, your soul, your being from everyone else because of the shame. Trust me, boys—if you haven't already tasted that, you will. I am sure most of you here already have. AND IT IS HARD. I know this firsthand, but I also know that failure was a key element to my life's journey.

My first real failure was in 1966 in the 6th grade. I played on our basketball team, and I was the smallest and youngest kid on the team. It was the last game of the season and I was the only player on the squad that had not scored a point all season. So in the second half the coach directed all the kids to throw me the ball when I went in, and for me to shoot so that I would score. The problem was that Coach Clark said it loud enough that every person in the stands could hear it as well as every member of the opposing team. Going into the fourth quarter, our team was well ahead, Coach Clark inserted me and thus, began the worst eight minutes of my life up until that point. Every time I got the ball, the entire other team would rush towards me, and on top of that, that afternoon I was the greatest brick layer the world had ever seen. The game ended. I had missed five shots, and the other team erupted in jubilation that I had not scored. I ran out of the gym as fast as I could only to bump into two of the opposing team's players who proceeded to laugh and tease and ridicule me. I cried and hid in the bathroom. Well, that passed, and I kept trying team sports, but I was just too small to really compete. So in the 10th grade, I took up boxing where suddenly everyone was my size and weight. I nearly won the Memphis Golden Gloves my senior year in high school and did win the collegiate championship when I was 19\. Standing in the middle of that ring and getting that trophy, I still remember looking around for those two little kids who had run me into that bathroom back in the 6th grade, because I was going to knock their blocks off. That's one problem with failure. It can stay with you for a very long time.

The next time the dragon of failure reared his ugly head was in 1978. I was working in New Orleans for one of the greatest cotton traders of all time, Eli Tullis. Now, New Orleans is an unbelievable city. It has the Strawberry Festival, the Jazz Festival, the Sugar Bowl, Mardi Gras, and just about every other excuse for a party that you can ever imagine. Heck, in that town, waking up was an excuse to party. I was still pretty fresh out of college, and my mentality, unfortunately, was still firmly set on fraternity row. It was a Friday morning in June, and I had been out literally all night with a bunch of my friends. My job was to man the phone all day during trading hours and call cotton prices quotes from New York into Mr. Tullis' office. Around noon, things got quiet on the New York floor, and I got overly drowsy. The next thing I remember was a ruler prying my chin off my chest, and Mr. Tullis calling to me, "Paul. Paul." My eyes fluttered opened and as I came to my senses, he said to me, "Son, you are fired." I'd never been so shocked or hurt in my life. I literally thought I was going to die for I had just been sacked by an iconic figure in my business.

My shame turned into anger. I was not angry at Mr. Tullis for he was right. I was angry at myself. But I knew I was not a failure, and I swore that I was going to prove to myself that I could be a success. I called a friend and secured a job on the floor of the New York Cotton Exchange and moved to the City. Today, I will put my work ethic up against anybody's on Wall Street. Failure will give you a tattoo that will stay with you your whole life, and sometimes it's a really good thing. One other side note, to this day, I've never told my parents that I got fired. I told them I just wanted to try something different. Shame can be a lifetime companion for which you better prepare yourself.

Now, there are two types of failure you will experience in life. The first type is what I just described and comes from things you can control. That is the worst kind. But there is another form of failure that will be equally devastating to you, and that is the kind beyond your control. This happened to me in 1982. I had met a very lovely young Harvard student from Connecticut, dated her for two years then asked her to marry me right after she graduated from college. We set a date; we sent out the invitations; and all was fantastic until one month before the wedding when her father called me. He said, "Paul, my daughter sat me down this afternoon, and she doesn't know how to tell you this, but she is really unhappy and thinks it's time for you two to take a break." At first I thought he was joking because he was a very funny guy. Then he said, "No, she is serious about this." I thought to myself, "Oh, my God, I am being dumped at the altar." I'm from Tennessee. Getting dumped at the altar was the supreme social embarrassment of that time. It was a big deal. When all my family and friends found out, they were ready to re-start the Civil War on the spot. I had to remind them that the last Civil War didn't go so well for our side, and I didn't like our chances in a rematch. The reality was that I was a 26-year old knucklehead, and since all my friends were getting married, I kind of felt it was time for me to do the same thing. And that was the worst reason in the world to get married. I actually think she understood that and to a certain extent spared me what would have been a very tough marriage. Instead, I've had an incredible marriage for twenty years to a wonderful wife, and we have four kids that I love more than anything on Earth. Some things happen to you that at the time will make you feel like the world is coming to an end, but in actuality, there is a very good reason for it. You just can't see it and don't know it. When one door closes, another will open, but standing in that hallway can be hell. You just have to persevere. Quite often that dragon of failure is really chasing you off the wrong road and on to the right one.

By now you are thinking, how much longer is this loser going to keep on talking. My kids are all teenagers, and whenever I'm telling them something I think is important, they often wonder the same thing. But the main point I want you to take away today is that some of your greatest successes are going to be the children of failure. This touches upon the original reason I was invited here today. In 1986, I adopted a class of Bedford Stuyvesant 6th graders and promised them if they graduated from high school, I would pay for their college. For those of you who don't know, Bed-Stuy is one of New York City's toughest neighborhoods. Even the rats are scared to go there at night. Statistically about 8% of the class I adopted would graduate from high school, so my intervention was designed to get them all into college. For the next six years, I did everything I could for them. I spent about $5,000 annually per student taking them on ski trips, taking them to Africa, taking them to my home in Virginia on the weekends, having report card night, hiring a counselor to help coordinate afternoon activities and doing my heartfelt best to get them ready for college. Six years later, a researcher from Harvard contacted me and asked if he could study my kids as part of an overall assessment of what then was called the "I Have a Dream" Program. I said sure. He came back to me a few months later and shared some really disturbing statistics. 86 kids that I had poured my heart and soul into for six years were statistically no different than kids from a nearby school that did not have the services our afterschool program provided. There was no difference in graduation rates, dropout rates, academic scores, teenage pregnancies, and the list went on. The only thing that we managed to do was get three times as many of our kids into college because we were offering scholarships whereas the other schools were not. But in terms of preparing these kids for college, we completely and totally failed. Boy, did this open my eyes. That was the first real-time example for me of how intellectual capital will always trump financial capital. In other words, I had the money to help these kids, but it was useless because I didn't have the brains to help them. I had tried to succeed with sheer force of will and energy and financial resources. I learned that this was not enough. What I needed were better defined goals, better metrics, and most importantly, more efficient technologies that would enable me to achieve those goals. What that whole experience taught me was that starting with kids at age 12 was 12 years too late. An afterschool program was actually putting a band-aid on a much deeper structural issue, and that was that our public education system was failing us. So in 2000, along with the greatest educator I knew, a young man named Norman Atkins, we started the Excellence Charter School in Bedford Stuyvesant for boys. We set the explicit goal of hiring the best teachers with the greatest set of skills to be the top performing school in the city. Now that was an ambitious goal but last year in 2008, Excellence ranked #1 out of 543 public schools in New York City for reading and math proficiency for any third and fourth grade cohort, and our school was 98% African American boys. We never would have done that had I not failed almost 15 years earlier.

So here is the point: you are going to meet the dragon of failure in your life. You may not get into the school you want or you may get kicked out of the school you are in. You may get your heart broken by the girl of your dreams or God forbid, get into an accident beyond your control. But the point is that everything happens for a reason. At the time it may not be clear. And certainly the pain and the shame are going to be overwhelming and devastating. But just as sure as the sun comes up, there will come a time on the next day or the next week or the next year, when you will grab that sword and point it at that dragon and tell him, "Be gone, dragon. Tarry with me and I will cut your head off. For I must find the destination God and life hold in store for me!" Young men of Buckley, good luck on your journey…..

<comment><USER5> thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I hate scribd.

</comment><comment><USER7> Here's his bio: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tudor_Jones>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I couldn't find a link to a pdf so if someone can post it in here that would be great.

<comment><USER8> <http://www.scribd.com/mobile/documents/16588637/download>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This one really struck me

 _When one door closes, another will open, but standing in that hallway can be hell_

When one door closes, another door opens. And not immediately. There's most often a (bad) wait in the hallway waiting for another to open.

<comment><USER10> Yeah that struck me the most also, I'm in that right now ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Overall a nice little diatribe, though I'm sad to see that Jones identifies the failure with the scholarship in New York as a failure of the school system instead of a failure of the home. He is right to state that 12 is 12 years too late; it needs to start immediately, and Mother and Father are crucial to the production of happy, functional people. Almost all of our serious problems stem from degradation of the home, and no secular school system can fix that.

<comment><USER12> He later describes a charter school he helped fund that had a lot of success. Doesn't that support the argument that schools can make a big difference?

You are right that the home is probably the biggest influence, but it isn't easy to "fix" homes through policy or charity. But if you can find ways to help kids break out of the cycle and go to college or otherwise find success, then the next generation may enjoy a better start.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> A bit heavy with religion, but the message was sound: "Failure will come, and you'd better be prepared to make use of it".

Unfortunately this doesn't apply very well for startups. Failure will come, but all too often because you're in the wrong market at the wrong time, or because your appraisal of what will sell is simply not good enough. In other words, what you learn from one failure doesn't help you very much in the next attempt.</comment>