How rich kids already won the career game - <AUTHOR> http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/yes-rich-kids-already-won-the-career-game-heres-why/ <comment><USER2> "I believe my generation will overthrow the arbitrary and brutal authority of corporate capitalism and bigoted conservatism in favor of rationalistic, libertarian socialism driven by a scientific approach and a concern for universal social justice."

That's what my generation believed. And my parents' generation. And their parents....read some literature from 100 years ago, for example by the Fabians or other socialist writers. This little blasted thing called human nature always seems to screw things up....

Regarding the main point of the OP, I have a counterexample. I have a friend whose career has never taken off, who usually gets fired after a few months, and has never acquired any useful skills beyond blustering self-confidence. Why ? His father is a multi-millionaire who has arranged every job he's had, and bailed him out of every financial difficulty. He's never had to work a day in his life and has absolutely no ambition or drive.

That's not saying all rich kids suffer from what you might call the George W. Bush syndrome - but taking away the need to make money can also make people over-confident and lazy.

<comment><USER3> >That's what my generation believed. And my parents' generation. And their parents

That doesn't mean it will never happen. The world is changing rapidly, it stands to reason that even more big changes could happen.

I think "human nature" is a bit of a red herring. We don't currently have any scientific way to separate how much of how people behave is social/environment programming and how much is "human nature".

<comment><USER2> > That doesn't mean it will never happen. The world is changing rapidly, it > stands to reason that even more big changes could happen.

Rapidly compared to what ? 1900-1960 arguably saw more significant cultural, technological and political change than 1960-2010. The internet and mobile phone are about the only significant technological breakthroughs in my lifetime - in fact even they happened before my lifetime, but were not commonplace yet.

> I think "human nature" is a bit of a red herring. We don't currently have > any scientific way to separate how much of how people behave is > social/environment programming and how much is "human nature".

Well, we do have millenia of recorded history. Social mores may change, human nature less so.

<comment><USER3> >The internet and mobile phone are about the only significant technological breakthroughs in my lifetime

I don't know if you've noticed but these two are having some very _large_ impact in the world right now. Dictators of 30 and 40 years are being cast off.

>Well, we do have millenia of recorded history. Social mores may change, human nature less so.

I think that's a pretty skewed view of history. Another way to see it might be that we used to mostly have largely anarchistic/socialist societies that were overrun by a few greedy people and we've spent the rest of our history taking back our freedoms from the elite few of our day.

Now you could say that even if we ever managed to get to a utopia state more greedy people will just show up but I would counter argue that e.g. Alexander the great wouldn't have gotten off the ground if people could have just sent a twitter to warn everyone else what he was up to.

<comment><USER4> >> I don't know if you've noticed but these two are having some very large impact in the world right now. Dictators of 30 and 40 years are being cast off.

Unfortunately, revolutions are nothing new. Bigger revolutions happened in the past quite impactfully without such technologies. These technologies perhaps add benefit in the arms race to better organize against government's controls for infrastructure, institutions, and society.

>> I think that's a pretty skewed view of history. Another way to see it might be that we used to mostly have largely anarchistic/socialist societies that were overrun by a few greedy people and we've spent the rest of our history taking back our freedoms from the elite few of our day. Now you could say that even if we ever managed to get to a utopia state more greedy people will just show up but I would counter argue that e.g. Alexander the great wouldn't have gotten off the ground if people could have just sent a twitter to warn everyone else what he was up to.

The same technology that people use for freedom, powers that be can use for more nefarious purposes. Technology in of itself is amoral and neutral. It's rather about who uses it more effectively. Today, the general populace perhaps has an advantage in that they're maybe more savvy than governments. Not necessarily will be the case all the time though. And besides that, it depends on whether people would love what Alexander stood for and would actually prefer to follow him. Look at what happened in Germany. Nobody better cite Godwin's Law here. Mein Kampf is seriously a great example of how a single idea, communication, or piece of media can rally the people to a cause that people in hindsight realized was incorrect. Technology can likewise be played by both sides.

<comment><USER5> > Unfortunately, revolutions are nothing new. Bigger revolutions happened in > the past quite impactfully without such technologies.

3 major drivers of the European revolutions of the 1840s (the longest period of sustained, international revolutions in history) were newspapers, trains and telegraphs. Like today's internet, they were loosely controlled by the state. Information could pass from capital to capital within hours, sometimes within minutes.

The key dynamic is not the medium of transmission; it is whether the state has yet managed to control it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Of the 100+ comments so far, relatively little has been said about the benefit to one's career of knowing upper class (or even just upper middle class) social rules. I'm not referring to the obvious ones like which fork to use at a restaurant but rather to the more subtle ones like what constitutes appropriate small talk. A 23 year-old from any socio-economic background might not have sufficient knowledge to contribute in a particular high-level meeting with a client. However, the kid from the upper class background is more likely to have proven in subtle ways that he is unlikely to be an embarrassment. So, the upper SES kid gets to attend the meeting as a learning experience. That the kid might be able to relate socially to the client (I went to Ivy XYZ with your neighbor's son, etc.) is icing on the cake.

<comment><USER7> This is dead on. I had a summer internship with a prestigious law firm. During the initial meet and greet between the interns and partners, one of my fellow interns admitted to not working after college in favor of "just traveling the world, surfing." To my shock, the partner was impressed by this answer. I was dumbfounded.

(PROTIP: usually "traveling the world surfing" is only possible if you are independently wealthy or willing to live like a hobo).

<comment><USER8> Why would this shock you? Don't _you_ find it interesting/impressive?

<comment><USER9> I am not particularly impressed with people who, by virtue of being born into money, spend years of their lives engaged in various unproductive pursuits.

I do find it interesting that someone named johngalt would be impressed by someone living the benefits of unearned wealth. Perhaps you should have adopted a more appropriate username. Were philiprearden and jamestaggart taken?

<comment><USER8> While it's not what I would choose for my kids, the money isn't uneared. His parents or ancestors earned it and spending it on him is what they want to do. It's not like he took it from them by force? FYI, objectivists are also allowed to buy birthday presents for their toddlers.

Do I find the idea of traveling the world and surfing interesting? Yes I do. Would I consider that adequate job experience? Not at all.

Remove the chip from your shoulder. Someone who wasn't you was able to do something fun. Don't be jealous of that.

<comment><USER10> _While it's not what I would choose for my kids, the money isn't uneared. His parents or ancestors earned it_

Oh, come on. You're just spliting hairs. I'm not jealous of it, but in no way is it earned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When I used to interview a lot of college kids, I found that I could guess accurately within a few minutes of conversation which had lived in a dorm/frat house/whatever and which had lived at home while going to college. The differences in social skills and worldliness/perspective were immense. Was this due to the effects of being surrounded by a bunch of relatively ambitious young people or was it due to the socio-economic selection bias inherent in the decision to live at home while attending school? Although I have read nothing to back up this claim, I presume that there is a positive correlation between high family income and the decision to go "away" for college. Living with one's parents implies going to a local college/university vs. the one which is a tight fit with one's goals. Also, it seems that those kids who live at home socialize with their local friends who, more often than not by virtue of still living in the town where they grew up, are less ambitious and worldly. Causation is hard to tease out, but correlation is definitely present, at least based on my sampling from doing college interviewing in the Cleveland area (another cause of selection bias, of course).

<comment><USER11> I'd imagine this pattern would depend on locality. For example, I live in CT and went to school in RI. I chose to live at home to save taking out additional loans for room and board, but I wasn't really separated from campus life, or even college towns for that matter (My parents lived by an art school and a state college).

However, were I do to the same in an area with fewer educational institutions per sq. mile, I may not have had that experience.

<comment><USER6> I agree. Let's take Boston as the extreme example of where one could choose a nearly "optimal" college while still living at home. Local availability of good education options coupled with the high cost of off-campus housing in the area probably makes the adverse selection bias I observed in Cleveland much weaker in Boston. In Ohio, off-campus housing is generally cheaper than living in a dorm room. However, I'm told that dorms are coveted at places like NYU because the universities effectively subsidize rents compared to market rates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Exactly same dynamics as in dating: If you appear like you've been single for a year, you'll have a difficult time. If you look like you just came back from the bedroom of a runway model you'll be surrounded by women.

The key here is attitude. While your upbringing influences that, you can always make a choice to be the relaxed rich kid. Even if your parents' income says differently.

<comment><USER13> Yep. This is the same reason that would-be underage drinkers are always asked for ID every time they try and go to the bar, right up until the day they reach the drinking age.

From that point on you're never asked for ID. The bartender can tell from your walk, your gaze and your speech that you have it, just like before they could tell that you didn't.

<comment><USER14> The bartender does that only until he gets busted by a police sting operation.

A good friend of mine had his nascent teaching career destroyed when he some confident-looking 20 year old chick dropped a 6 pack of Bud Light on the counter of the store he managed part-time. He didn't bother asking for ID (which he was typically pretty strict about) and was led out in cuffs.

He received a conditional dismissal after 3 years of probation, but explaining a 3+ year career gap ("So, why did you quit teaching after 6 months to fix cars?") takes you off the fast track.

<comment><USER15> Where the hell do you live, Singapore? That law is draconian.

<comment><USER16> Welcome to America. We were founded by Puritans.

<comment><USER17> How much do you actually know about Puritans? Most of what I learned about them in high school came from works of fiction. It was a pretty unfair picture, in retrospect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The article seems to me a just-so story. The author might be ignorant of the rich kids who end up as drug addicts or at the very least entirely economically unproductive simply because they can. They've got nothing to loose by not kowtowing to the bosses but nothing to gain by working hard either as they've already got everything laid on a plate for them.

However I think there often _is_ something different in the attitudes of people with rich and poor upbringings. But from the article the kid whose parents earn $125,000 and who was bright and went to a top tier school will likely have all the doors open to him and the self confidence to take advantage of it. Any attitude difference above that level of income is mostly accounted for by individual personality and intelligence. Someone however who was born to a working class family and grew up surrounded by people in blue collar jobs might not have the confidence or social network to climb as high. Or at least the path is noticeably steeper.

And on a personal note, I disagree with the comment _"He has the right air about him, and the same freedom from anxiety and free-flowing creative energy of a college student because, for him, college (i.e. the time of life in which most middle-class peoples' lives peak) never ended."_ At university things were just starting to get really fun. I'm mid thirties now and looking forward to the fun that's around the corner. Not only is the glass half full, but it's champagne and the cute waitress is coming round with refills.

<comment><USER19> I whole heartedly agree with this, it also really felt like the post author was describing a really specific situation. Perhaps one where he was that middle class guy and the other guy was someone who just got the raise he wanted. I don't know, but the whole article came across as trying to blame failure to thrive on forces outside of one's control. In fact it might be more to do with bravery, personality and intelligence. I'm from a middle class background and have never had a problem saying what I think to senior management right up to CEO level, I am from a contracting background though and so perhaps I've never settled in one place long enough to get scared of losing my job.

Anyway from what the original poster describes I think someone in this particular middle class guys position would find working for a web technology company much more rewarding and fulfilling. Corporate structure tends to be less top down and more open and inclusive. For anyone in this position who is thinking of moving jobs perhaps they'd like to refactor their résumé using my new app:

<http://www.mightycv.com/>

Invites will be sent out soon.

<comment><USER19> I'm guessing the downvotes are because I've crossed the line I was worried about in this post:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2287643>

Apologies, I really didn't want to come across as being spammy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "The difference is that children of wealth traverse it at a height of one meter over a mattress, while the middle-class and poor traverse it at a height of 20 meters over a lava pit."

I notice no one is commenting on this part. Namely, that for children of financial privilege, the risk/reward ratio for a career is markedly skewed compared to their middle class peers.

<comment><USER21> It's largely true, but depressing and unfix-able.

It's really bad with jobs that expect you to "pay your dues" at the beginning, yet still socialize with co-workers at restaurants after work. People from a more modest background are seen as anti-social when they really just have a cash flow problem.

There's a negative feedback loop.

<comment><USER22> It's fixable.

Financial security and social familiarization aren't the only sources of confidence. Understanding of skills' value, faith in the ability to learn new skills, curiousity about what others find valuable and willingness to provide it -- no one who has these has much deep anxiety about pleasing the boss. If the boss likes them, great! If not, they're happy to move somewhere that appreciates what they add. Confidence is out there for anyone willing to learn and work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Much of this essay is based on the idea of social capital,

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital>

I've found a lot of people, especially in the upper- and upper-middle classes, often deny the importance of social capital, but I find it to be very important.

Someone from wealth can lose all of their money, and still have the social capital necessary the maintain their class status.

<comment><USER24> My problem with the essay is that the author assumes complete causation between social capital and real capital. He goes from socio-economic status to personality traits without acknowledging at all what he has done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> He missed some of the other reasons a son-of-a-rich is more likely to have it better in the workplace: experience with business. A SOR is more likely to have grown up around people who talk the talk of high finance, and have friends with the same experience. They are more comfy with those in the business, and those in the business are more comfy with them, because they can speak the same language.

My father worked in a factory, as a member of a union, and I grew up not having the first clue about how the market or business works.

In technical fields, those who grow up in the middle class probably know someone with intricate technical knowledge, and who is a master of their art, even if it is a mechanic, electrician or HVAC repairman, and have picked up at least the feel of the technical jargon from them.

Slightly related, on This American Life over the week-end, they interviewed several people who work in finance at some of the firms who were bailed out by TARP, and they all swore that they had _their_ high-paying job because of their superior talent, and deserved to get payed their tax-payer inflated salaries because they were smarter than most other people. They all complained that Pres. Obama was a meanie to big businesses, trying to tell them what to do and all, and should just leave them alone.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think this article is preaching to the wrong crowd here on HN. A entrepreneur is by definition an upstart, an usurper who is out to break the conventions. You can't do this by being a quite yes man.

That said what percentage of entrepreneurs, successful or not come from rich backgrounds? This article's ideas would apply two fold to the startup arena where you cannot get anywhere simply by running on the hamster wheel.

<comment><USER27> Relatedly, 60% of NBA Stars are bankrupt within 5 years after retirement:

      http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3469271

      Filing for bankruptcy is a long-standing tradition
      for NBA players, 60% of whom, according to the Toronto
      Star, are broke five years after they retire.

So it's not completely true that wealth is an advantage that cannot be squandered. And in the US there was a saying that used to be more popular -- "from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations".

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/letter_from_america/11...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/letter_from_america/1178345.stm)

      But many more smaller figures of the Robber Baron age
      made immense fortunes, took no care of them, were not
      of a generous or philanthropic nature, handed the money
      on as a life belt to their sons who then squandered it,
      so much so that their sons returned to the shirtsleeves
      in which grandfather had landed in the United States.

To the extent that the unusual combination of traits required to create enormous wealth is at all heritable, it is certainly _imperfectly_ heritable. This is augmented by the fact that when you have large families, the wealth is divided among all children. So insofar as we think of income mobility as a good thing, it's actually abetted in part by highly imperfect heritability and large family size.

(Not driving at any particular point here, just some interesting links of relevance to thinking on income mobility).

<comment><USER28> "NBA star" != "NBA players"

<comment><USER4> That's true enough, parent should have been more careful in word choice. But it doesn't change the fact that even the worst players get paid a significant amount of money and should be able to retire just fine, if they knew how to manage their money.

<comment><USER28> I was going to argue with this but after some research, NBA players really do get decent minimums. In other sports, you can be the last pro who managed to not get cut and only get $100k per year, which is nice but isn't "retire after five years of it" money either. In the NBA, the minimum salary for a rookie is still $490k and it goes up to $788k after one year. That really is "retire after five years of it" money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Maybe it's different in the US, but in the UK there's no statistical difference between earnings 3.5 years after university graduation due to parental background once you adjust for university/degree subject.

(children from poorer backgrounds are less likely to go into good universities or study high-earning subjects, but if they do then they'll earn as much as their better off peers)

<comment><USER30> That's quite an interesting observation I don't seem to have seen trumpeted (enough) during the battles over tuition fee increases. Do you have a citation for it?

<comment><USER29> I don't have the citation to hand, but I'm pretty sure the research came from the Sutton Trust who specialize in this area.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> As a citizen of both worlds, I'll say the authors story rings very true. When I first came to the US, I did totally entitled from years of being upper class in a small third world country.. it took me several years to realize that I was now a very small fish in a huge pond where opportunities didn't just materialized for you and problems easily faded away.

20 years later I find myself moved up to a pretty good on that big pond mainly because of good opportunities in the tech industry but I would strongly agree with the author that a lot of that success was achieved through the Mojo that a complete lack of fear of failure gives you.

</comment><comment><USER32> The career game is not nearly as important now as it was a couple decades ago, though. Now you can easily opt to be judged directly by market, by starting your own company. Customers don't know or care what your social origins are.

<comment><USER33> _Wow_ , that's a slanted view of the world!

Outside of the software industry, which is a tiny (~1%) portion of the economy, what has changed since 1995? Suppose you're an investment banker, and you hate your boss, as most investment bankers do. Want to start your own investment bank? How? You need to have connections to upper management at lots and lots of companies, so you can arrange deals. And very few people have that.

Or, suppose you're an accountant. Can you start your own accounting practice? Sure, maybe, it's not a crazy idea. But is it really any different than it was 15 years ago? You still need to get a reputation, build up a client list, market yourself well, etc. Not much has really changed.

Or, even, suppose that you're in another, non-software tech industry, like pharmaceuticals. That's way _harder_ than it was 15 years ago, because of tighter FDA regulation. Just try getting a drug to market with less than $100,000,000 in capital, and very few people can raise that kind of capital.

<comment><USER8> Investment banker: Work hard where you're at and then steal the client list to go start your own shop. If you're really better than the boss you hate people will flock to you. Make sure the clients see you as a go-getter.

That investment shop will have every banker arguing that they deserve a gigantic compensation package. Add's a lot of overhead that you won't have starting out.

Accounting: Like most professional services the web has revolutionized accounting. You can now trivially have your accounting done anywhere in the world. How about you start your own shop by hiring and managing overseas workers? Or how about a cadre of accountants based in a low cost area of the US? Since 1995 other industries have been transformed by technology MORE than the tech sector. Netflix/iPod/Kindle anyone?

You've got me on pharmaceuticals, but it seems that regulation is the key here. I doubt communism would help with that.

<comment><USER34> "Investment banker: Work hard where you're at and then steal the client list to go start your own shop."

That's actually the one action where a non-compete is universally and trivially enforceable in all 50 states. As I understand it, IANAL. Additionally, it's unethical if you believe in that sort of thing. So, bad idea.

Not sure what communism has to do with anything. At all.

<comment><USER8> If you sign a non-compete, are you surprised that it's difficult to go out and found a competing organization? If you can't manage starting your own investment firm, then you apply what you've learned as a banker to a different slice of the pie. Fundamentally you're looking at ways it won't work rather than looking at ways it can work.

"Not sure what communism has to do with anything. At all." The article? Specifically mentioned communism as the solution to these problems? If you're pointing to regulation as a barrier to entry then what the article recommends wouldn't help.

EDIT: Excuse me it advocates the universal solidarity of social justice to promote the overthrow of capitalism in the name of _socialism_ whew, good thing I caught that. Someone could have confused socialism with communism.

<comment><USER34> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This was an whiny and awful post about "life isn't fair". The socially outgoing and confident worker will always outperform his socially awkward counterpart of equal intelligence. It doesn't matter that he came from a wealthy family, what matters is he has MORE skills. It isn't discrimination until you start hiring the less wealthy (with less skills) because of the fact that they're less wealthy.

<comment><USER36> "This was an whiny and awful post about 'life isn't fair'."

It wasn't whiny at all.

"The socially outgoing and confident worker will always outperform his socially awkward counterpart of equal intelligence. It doesn't matter that he came from a wealthy family, what matters is he has MORE skills."

This was the author's point.

<comment><USER35> No, his point was that rich kids have better attitudes, skills and perceived work ethic which is simply not true.

"Middle-class kids generally fuck up their first few years of the career game in one of two ways." - really??

<comment><USER36> "His point was that rich kids have better attitudes, skills and perceived work ethic which is simply not true."

I mean I can point you to any number of academic studies confirming this, e.g. Hart & Risley's Meaningful Differences book.

Or just go to any elite private university and compare the kids who are there during summer session with the kids who are there during the rest of the year. The only real difference is SES, as you can't apply financial aid to summer session classes, and you also can't be there if you need a job over the summer. And yet the kids are completely different than the ones who are there during the regular school year.

<comment><USER37> You could probably say the same thing about the summer session at most universities. The kids willing to give up their summers for education have a different level of drive than the ones that attend the rest of the year.

Not that summer session is always the best course of action. An internship will go a lot further toward most careers than a few extra classes.

<comment><USER36> "The kids willing to give up their summers for education have a different level of drive than the ones that attend the rest of the year."

Not really, if anything it takes less drive. It's vastly easier to take classes over the summer (when classes are usually easier), and then do your internships in fall or spring when there's no competition. The only reason not everyone does this is that it wouldn't be financially viable.

<comment><USER38> Since when can you not apply financial aid to summer classes? When I was in college (10 years ago), the rule was 2 semesters/year.

Summer usually wasn't viable because class selection is limited. For example, Quantum Mechanics 1 is fall semester, Quantum Mechanics 2 is spring semester, and you need both to graduate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Wow does this ring true to me. I'm working at wal-mart for gas money while going to college. I had a customer call and complain and I had to go talk to management. Such a scary ordeal since I need this job. I have nothing to fall back on, with no gas money, no degree. My fate is in their hands and that is the most sickening feeling I've ever had. But this is temporary. When I'm done with college, wal-mart customers are going to get a piece of my mind since I won't be worrying about getting fired.

The guy is right, when you have everything to lose at the slightest mistake, you don't take chances.

<comment><USER9> "When I'm done with college, wal-mart customers are going to get a piece of my mind since I won't be worrying about getting fired."

Right, because having a college diploma is equivalent to guaranteed employment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I see the similar dynamics between American citizens and immigrant workers. Immigrants, in general, are more risk-averse. They do not want to lose a work visa or to disrupt the green card process. As a result, they become yes-men and avoid challenging and unsolicited projects. Of course, it is not always the case, but I feel that in general Americans have some psychological advantage in career advancement.

<comment><USER41> It's more subtle than that. Let's say you get 100 risk points to spend. An American might say, I'll spend 75 points on setting up my own business. An immigrant would say, I've already spent 50 risk points on coming to America, I don't have 75 to spare.

<comment><USER40> Non-American can not legally start a business without a green card or getting a work visa for his startup (extremely hard to get)

<comment><USER41> Yeah - but you are saying that immigrants are risk-averse and that's simply not true - just they have allocated their risk differently than you.

<comment><USER42> I agree. I think that immigration itself is a risky undertaking. One has to abandon everything familiar, which is by no means easy, regardless the difficult circumstances. Besides, all the rich kids in the US today we are discussing and capitalists are the descendants of immigrants. I would not say that immigrants are risk-averse, but I think that obtaining a visa or green card mainly keep them from entrepreneurial ventures. Or maybe language barriers.

<comment><USER43> Actually my experience growing up in NYC (and this may be an outlier, but I see it elsewhere) is that immigrants are _more_ likely to be entrepreneurial because traditional employment is off limits due to language, cultural, and educational barriers–and sometimes outright discrimination. That's why there are New York archetypes of Korean green grocers, Chinese dry cleaners, Greek diner owners, etc (albeit these are rapidly shifting). The large number of Jewish-owned businesses in NY speaks to the historical discrimination against Jews (and not just some stereotypical belief about business acumen). Not exactly social networking and cloud computing, but entrepreneurship nonetheless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> TL;DR - Self-confidence makes a difference to success in life. People who come from privileged backgrounds naturally exude confidence.

</comment><comment><USER45> tl;dr: people with FU Money perform better in their jobs

I suppose on the other hand you have to consider that rich kids have less motivation to succeed than middle/lower class people, if they already have all the material things they can realistically desire

(the article also didn't site any studies to back up its statistics or claims, so you have to take it at face value)

<comment><USER46> I'm not rich, neither can I cite evidence to back this up, but looking around in my circle of friends, I don't agree with you.

Rich(er) kids have just as much drive to work on interesting products, find new solutions to problems, etc. And they have the added benefit of not having to worry about making a baseline salary on the side, they can ask their parents to bootstrap them, to find first clients, etc. Sure you can say that there are some who are slacking off on their parents money, but then again there are also middle class/poor kids who don't do anything useful in life.

<comment><USER45> Allow me to rephrase then: to the extent that lack of comfort/possessions motivates people to strive for better, rich kids will experience less motivation from that source. Of course they can always find motivation from other sources. I suppose you could also argue that everyone is motivated to maintain their current standards of living, rather than (or more than) elevate to something higher. So rich kids will find it unacceptable to settle for a middling income.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'll always hire a middle class guy with something to prove over an ivy leaguer. The fire in the belly is what resonates with me the most. They work harder and don't take success for granted.

</comment><comment><USER48> "rich kids don't fear the boss."

So true. And if you start acting like a boss, you'll start being treated like one. Of course, this is a tricky business (as Michael mentions), and a lot depends on your role and the company's culture. But with the right approach, a mix of social skills and "knowing your stuff", it's possible. Especially in the field of technology.

</comment><comment><USER49> Yes, being rich can make you confident which can do well for your career. But there are plenty of other unfair advantages that also bring confidence, like height or good looks. And then there are really horribly unfair things like intelligence.

<comment><USER50> I'm tall and am/was arguably somewhat good looking. I don't get many, if any, advantages from this because I grew up as and am a pretty serious geek. Now that I'm older I have better social skills, but because of how I turned out I never got the benefits of this. Without the proper attitude even looks aren't helpful. It took me a long time to learn proper social skills and I feel ten years behind my peers. This is typical in technology. I wont even go into how tech is this ghetto that rich kids never bother with anyway, they are just on the fast track to management.

On the other hand money is concrete and real. If I had 5 million in the bank my attitude would be 100% different. I wouldn't be considered geeky, I'd be geek-chic and eccentric. I wouldn't have most of the anxities I have now because I know money can buy me almost everything I need.

Sorry, but large sums of money are nowhere comparable to less tangible gifts like height or looks. One buys me a home the other maybe gets me an occasional second glance.

I'll also toss in that thinking of yourself as a social peer with your bosses is a huge benefit. The book "Outliers" explores this. Well-off kids are raised to be assertive and have a sense of entitlement. They just do better in life. They can defend these attitudes by saying "I come from a well off family, just as wealthy as you. I went to the same school as you and your kids and my parents know the same people. I was taught to get my way and that my parents will protect me with their riches."

Lately, coincidentally, I have a lot in common with my current bosses. The social parts take care of themselves and its a huge benefit without me putting in a lot of effort. I don't feel the divide between them and me as much as at my previous jobs. I have a small amount of savings that can help me get by if I get fired or laid off. If this is how rich kids feel at age 23 when entering the workforce then they have a HUGE advantage.

<comment><USER9> Seconded. The claim that height is some sort of social, sexual, or financial advantage is absurd.

<comment><USER51> Women prefer men who are taller than them. I rarely if ever see a woman with a man shorter than her.

<comment><USER9> This is likely due to the fact that American men average a few inches taller than American women. Biology and statistical sampling plus a little bit of confirmation bias.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> This seems totally fictional. If the deck was really so stacked, why would a super rich kid be working as an entry level analyst with the plebes in the first place?

<comment><USER53> Because then they've been seen to be humble enough to have worked their way up from the bottom... so they can all feel like they've fairly got to the top of the company, and earned it too.

The implication of this article is that the odds were stacked in their favour not necessarily just through explicit intentions of the higher ups, but through the difference in their inherent attitude.

<comment><USER52> Well, that sucks. I thought the whole point of being born rich was that you get to do cool stuff like drink blood out of Abraham Lincoln's skull with Dick Cheney and the Winklevoss twins, and leapfrog the corporate ladder. Spending your 20s making Powerpoint presentations with the less fortunate would be a total bummer.

<comment><USER53> You only really need to take credit for the work, I took from the article that you don't actually need to be very good.

I for one am blending a bit of both. From a lower-middle class background and being content to be less than average at my job. For some reason it isn't working out as well as I hoped :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Wow did that last paragraph ruin the article.

</comment><comment><USER24> Using an anecdote as data is bad enough. Using a _madeup_ anecdote is even worse.

</comment><comment><USER55> {citation needed}

</comment><comment><USER56> I never realized how poor I was until I started seeing articles like this. Growing up in rural Ohio, my dad made something like $15-20K to support a family of 5. It's a completely different world for someone who has a $40K+ student loan and a substantial amount of credit card debt hanging over him the day he's done with college.

</comment><comment><USER57> I think it's unfortunate that they mention rich, yet don't mention the advantage of coming from an entrepreneurial family. Whether rich or not, if your parent is self-employed or an entrepreneur it will have a huge impact on how you take on corporate jobs versus someone who's parents didn't start their own company.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure how much that matters. It is something new in the last century that most people assuming "working" means working for some company, no?

<comment><USER57> From my experience it matters a lot. When you grow up in an entrepreneurial environment you see ups and downs and realize and are less concerned with job security, bureaucracy, and more prone to innovate, or at least for opportunities to spin something off yourself. This article was written was the last century in mind, so I am not sure what you are getting at.

<comment><USER3> What I mean is, everyone used to be entrepreneurs and most switched right over to the mentality that you have to "get a job". Why would modern entrepreneur children have a different view?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> "I believe my generation will overthrow the arbitrary and brutal authority of corporate capitalism and bigoted conservatism in favor of rationalistic, libertarian socialism driven by a scientific approach and a concern for universal social justice."

so, did you just take poli-sci to learn buzzwords and impress dumb chicks? I'm guessing you failed to comprehend any of the material. Before you call a fortune 500 company a "brutal authority" you might want to _READ A FUCKING BOOK_.

<comment><USER59> Nice personal attack right there. Try addressing his argument next time. And FYI, sociologically speaking, most corporations are brutal psychopats.

<comment><USER27> Absolutely agree with you that he should address his argument.

That said, this is almost too obvious to point out, but it happens to be true that the Soviet Union and Communist China (and Vietnam, Cambodia, etcetera) murdered 100 million+[1] in the name of "building socialism", and it is quite possible that the original poster knows people from those countries who lost loved ones to socialism/communism.

Seen in this light, I'm not saying that OP's phrasing was the way to go, but it's understandable that there are people frustrated by this all too common style of ignorance. It's not idealistic to _actually_ support socialism in 2011, it's simply ignorant.

At the risk of reductio ad Hitlerum, certainly an offhand comment in favor of "rational, libertarian Nazism" would have dominated response to the essay, yet we find it acceptable for educated people to make offhand[2] complimentary references to a polar opposite ideology that actually killed many more people.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes- Repression...](http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes- Repression/dp/0674076087)

[2] Or in this case, direct rather than offhand

<comment><USER60> Perhaps you are not familiar with the terminology... In most of the world, "libertarian" means libertarian socialism. The historically correct meaning. Some right-wingers in 1950's US appropriated the term to mean extreme capitalism. Discussed earlier:

([http://raganwald.posterous.com/hello-my-name-is-reginald- and...](http://raganwald.posterous.com/hello-my-name-is-reginald-and-i-am-a- socialis))

The usual claims against communism don't apply, as libertarian socialists historically opposed both communism and capitalism. (In the senses you mean.)

<comment><USER61> The link you provided does not talk about the word 'libertarian' at all, other than its author calling himself a Libertarian Socialist.

<comment><USER60> I'm sorry, you're correct, I should have linked to the HN discussion, where steveklabnik does a good job explaining. I was very distracted and rushed when posting.

(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1653063>)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> It's not where you are. It's where you're going.

I liked this article, but my experiences have been different. From what I've seen, it seems like broad career choice is also incredibly significant; and that's something rich kids often get wrong (from the perspective of an entrepreneur). They want to have happy lives in prestigious jobs, and there lies the problem. They want stability instead of the ability to change something.

Now I'm studying abroad, and have met up with a bunch of rich kids. They all want to party. Sure, if I get a job with them it's possible they'll do better than me. So I won't get a job with them.

Let's look at the top entrepreneurs right now. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg. All of them were well-to-do but weren't rich. But that didn't matter for them at the time. Because their ambition was far more powerful than their income.

<comment><USER63> <http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/>

Gates already had a million dollar trust fund.

<comment><USER62> Fair enough, but that's 1/3.

Of course, none of the three were exactly poor, and all grew up with programming backgrounds. We'll see who takes charge these next 20 years.

<comment><USER64> Zuck went to Philips Exeter. Boarding in 2011, that's $40,000 a year his dad shelled out for high school; non-boarding, still $31,000. OK, it wasn't today's dollars, but aying he wasn't "exactly poor" is an understatement.

Going to school somewhere like that is one of the experiences that develops precisely the attitude the blogger is talking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> If you are so "controlled" by your generalized/stereotyped upbringing you don't deserve to lead/manage.

<comment><USER20> Arguably many of the people who lead/manage now don't deserve to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Another explication might be that rich kid not needing a job, do the right thing instead of the boss thing as they work lending them more opportunity.

'Linchpin' by Seth Godin defends this thesis that the job market has changed and that opportunities are given to (or taken by) the one that don't follow the rules.

The beginning of the article is nice, but the end nearly fall in fatalism. Saying that a sociological and behavioral issue is unsurmountable if you're not in the right dispositions first is just incredibly wrong. The world is changed by people doing things everyday even if the stars are never aligned; waiting a scientific approach to the world is very, very useless and a bit frightening too.

</comment><comment><USER8> You're right it's hopeless and unfair. We are all losers that should stop trying immediately. We should spend our time wishing for impossible utopian communism that will somehow arbitrarily add fairness. Then we can complain that we aren't as tall as other people, or as strong.

Or we could act like winners. Turn the tables and determine where life is unfair _in your favor_ and play that game, or at least push the game closer to that direction. Rich kids are pushed into certain roles/behaviors as well. There are risks that they fear that you do not.

</comment><comment><USER67> ok... I think the problems lies in trying to control something out of our locus of control. We can't control the rich having an advantage, so much thoughts shouldn't be given to such matters[as related to personal advancement, not social]. What's within our control[concern] we have the quality of our work, how much we take initiate, building a social network etc.

I find the author built a prison for himself by attacking the problem through an avenue he has no control over.

</comment><comment><USER68> Yes, rich kids already take the whole world. I know this far before because I'm a Chinese lives in China Mainland. I'm not sure what's the real career game in western country, but I know the Chinese one. Rich kids inherit everything from their parents the most important thing is social relations which is very important in China.Other kids work for them. That's it.

</comment><comment><USER69> Do you have any evidence or case studies to back up your claim? That rich kids earn more than middle class kids on average?

</comment><comment><USER70> Rich family drives 5-year old to doctor's visit. Mom: "Remember honey, you can ask the doctor anything you want, and if he does something you don't like just tell him no."

Poor family drives 5-year old to doctor's visit. Mom: "Remember honey, be respectful and do as the doctor says. And be quiet or there will be trouble."

From an actual study.

</comment><comment><USER71> Wouldn't it be better to attempt to cast these ideas in an evolutionary biological framework rather than in a typical static classical rich-poor, capitalist-marxist, liberal-conservative values framework that we use in voting? Might something more closely approximating the truth be revealed by doing so?

</comment><comment><USER72> This specifically has to do with fear, social fear, and how it plays out in the workplace and in one's relationships.

You cannot change your social background, but you can choose to recognize and transcend fear. You can treat everybody respectfully as a social equal regardless of your background.

Meditation helps.

</comment><comment><USER73> I recommend Lubrano's book: Limbo: Blue-Collar Roots, White-Collar Dreams [http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-047126376...](http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471263761,descCd- reviews.html)

</comment><comment><USER74> The idea that rich kids are more liberated is wrong headed. It's'simply myopic. There's'not even an attempt to explore the inherent advantages of the "other."

Insight a rich kid can never have being merely one of dozens that shot into my fatigued head.

</comment><comment><USER75> I am fearless because I was poor and it ain't so bad. Being born middle-class must suck.

<comment><USER64> You have a point. In finance especially, I think being middle class is about the worst position to be in. If you're poor, you get into finance because you're fearless and hungry and worked your ass off. You work on the trading floor and get along fine.

If you're rich, it's like the OP said -- you get into finance because you have casual confidence and connections. You probably already know your boss or some of his colleagues socially, or your dad belongs to the same yacht club. And your boss likes you because you're just like him.

If you're middle class, though, you aren't hungry because you were actually pretty comfortable growing up, and you don't have the connections because your dad is an accountant at a mid-sized manufacturing company and doesn't have a yacht. So you're screwed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> Wow. I'm thrilled that this essay has received so much attention. I went from 50 pageviews per day, on average, to 20,000 in one day. I'm very busy with work and I don't have time for a point-by-point reply to everyone, even though there are a lot of great comments here and many deserve replies. I just don't think I will get to it in a timely fashion.

To address some of those critiques, last night I wrote a follow up to this essay here: [http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/follow-up- on-...](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/follow-up-on-rich-kids- beating-the-career-game/) .

</comment><comment><USER77> Holly Crap. People that go around here don't question capitalism. They dream to sell their souls to the highest bidder. And than when water and food are so crappy (because of the corporate masters) they will give all money to health corporations. Oh my....

<comment><USER78> You're surprised that people on an entrepreneurship website are capitalists?

<comment><USER77> No i am surprised that people with intelligence and vision for technology, don't think outside the box when is needed. For me there is no panacea for society. Part of my life was in Socialism, another in Democracy / Corporatocracy and believe when i say that in two cases for normal hardworking and talented individual there is no hope. The solution is to take what's good from both of them, for example public healthcare (from communism) and free market (from capitalism). And make politicians responsible for every penny that they are willing to take against public interest. But what i know...

<comment><USER79> The public interest may not be in the public's interest. Inequality may not always be a bad thing. The focus shouldn't be on the gap between the haves and have nots, the focus should be on the dire situation of the poor without worrying about the lives of those better off.

<comment><USER80> What bothers me is that the only solution to bridge the "income inequality" is to take money from the rich and just give it to the poor.

Beyond the mentally and physically unable (which is a very low percentage), poverty is a result of poor life choices. This is what freedom gives us: the ability to succeed or fall flat on our ass due to our own choices, which is why we will always have poverty in our current system.

<comment><USER81> > Beyond the mentally and physically unable (which is a very low percentage), > poverty is a result of poor life choices.

Oh, how I want to see you tell that to a 15 year old born in a ghetto.

<comment><USER80> "Oh, how I want to see you tell that to a 15 year old born in a ghetto."

The truth hurts sometime. If we continue to ignore it, nothing will ever change.

<comment><USER81> No, I actually literally want to see you say that, in real life, face to face, to a 15 year old human. Bonus points if it's a girl.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Report: Huge CenturyLink outage caused by bad networking card in Colorado - <AUTHOR> https://www.geekwire.com/2018/report-huge-centurylink-outage-caused-bad-networking-card-colorado/ <comment><USER2> A single physical NIC really caused this? Throughout, what now, over a dozen states? This is a service that is promised to have redundancy. I think this story is sufficiently light on the details that the comments can happily engage in clever speculation on how this could happen.

I wonder how many of these redundancies are virtualized and are in Colorado? I mean, of course that's a joke, because it can't be that simple of an explanation, that'd be ridiculous.</comment>


Microsoft pledges not to search user email for stolen property - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/28/5558484/microsoft-pledges-not-to-search-user-email-for-stolen-property <comment><USER2> Kudos for making it right (I guess they could have just waited for it to blow over, instead of taking any action), but this is like asking for forgiveness rather than permission. Still not a good look for a company that wants to be a large part of my connected life.</comment>


A minimalist guide to tmux - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/actualize-network/a-minimalist-guide-to-tmux-13675fb160fa <comment><USER2> I'd add <prefix> w to that list, which shows an interactive list of opened windows which is very friendly to newcomers, does away with the base-index setting that's needed to fix cognitive dissonance of tab order vs key order, and circumvents the inconvenience of having to use shift to reach for numbers on non-US layouts.

> Ctrl a (a little faster to type, doesn't conflict with vim

... but conflicts with beginning-of-line emacs-style bindings, widely in use in readline/libedit/zsh.

<comment><USER3> C-a seems to be quite a common prefix, but as you said, it conflicts with the beginning-of-line command. I've been quite happy with C-s so far; if it conflicts with something, I have no idea.

<comment><USER4> C-s searches forward where C-r searches backwards, if you're used to using C-r to retrieve an earlier command via incremental search.

If not otherwise configured with stty, it's frequently set up for control flow along with C-q. If you find your terminal freezes after typing C-s, C-q will unfreeze it.

Disable with:

        stty -ixon start undef stop undef

<comment><USER3> Thanks, I didn't know that! I use the fish shell, which does history searching differently but this is useful for those few times when I'm in bash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Let's say you're using vim to edit code on a remote computer using ssh, and > you want to open a new terminal tab to start a development server.

vim 8 has a built-in terminal.

      :terminal ./start-development-server.sh --port 8080

will open a new buffer in a split window that executes the given command line. And it even supports all the regular vim keybindings.

      :help terminal.txt

for details.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for sharing this! Vim is the kind of tool I use all the time, but never check for new features. Will definitely use :terminal all the time now :).

(For anyone interested, it looks like only more recent releases of vim 8 have :terminal.)

<comment><USER5> Yes, it was added only recently after Neovim showed the idea of terminal buffers to be feasible.

So it may not be available on $random_rhel6_server, but since the article described the scenario of a development server, I figured that package versions on there should be fairly recent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Of all the previous tmux discussions, the most practical help was given when this article was discussed 2 months ago:

[dupe] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15776995](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15776995) (267 points, 96 comments)

Surprised to see it again so soon -- darn you Medium flexible URLs!

PS. Anyone willing to earn $400 implementing mosh ssh port forwarding [https://www.bountysource.com/issues/4471419-ssh-port- forward...](https://www.bountysource.com/issues/4471419-ssh-port-forwarding- doesn-t-work), or should I move on to the mentioned alternative [https://mistertea.github.io/EternalTCP](https://mistertea.github.io/EternalTCP)?

PPS. Bountysource feels sketch: [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=bountysource](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=bountysource)

<comment><USER8> ET might be insecure. It has recently been easy to segfault with network traffic.

[https://github.com/MisterTea/EternalTCP/issues/79](https://github.com/MisterTea/EternalTCP/issues/79)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> A while ago I saw comments here about tmuxinator. Which was a fantastic improvement to my tmux use. Create a layout manually, get the layout from tmux and then set it up to launch a custom set of windows, panes, and programs based on my project needs. Doing this easily and repeatedly makes it trivial for me to set aside a task and come back to it later and be confident I will have everything in view that I need.

[https://github.com/tmuxinator/tmuxinator](https://github.com/tmuxinator/tmuxinator)

<comment><USER2> Should you have to reboot, this related tidbit can come in handy: [https://github.com/tmux-plugins/tmux-resurrect](https://github.com/tmux- plugins/tmux-resurrect)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Tmux is awesome. Although I never understood why they used ctrl-b instead of ctrl-a as the default though - incompatible with screen and hard to reach with one hand.

<comment><USER11> Probably since ctrl-a is a well-loved bash shortcut for goto start-of-line.

<comment><USER12> I assume that shortcut predates the existence of the Home key? Maybe we can let it die.

<comment><USER3> I hope not. I actually find C-a and C-e (for end) _much_ easier to type, especially with Caps Lock remapped to CTRL.

<comment><USER12> And my own personal muscle memory prefers a different setup, so that's why these things should be configurable, but the defaults should probably match common conventions don't you think?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Previous discussion, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15776995](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15776995)

</comment><comment><USER14>
      # remap prefix from 'C-b' to 'C-a'

Still hate the tmux devs for that default value, but hell there is so much good they did, so I can forgive them that :D

<comment><USER15> C-a is a non-starter for people who use Emacs/OS X key bindings for move- beginning-of-line.

<comment><USER16> C-b is pretty bad for the same reason for users like me with with well-worn emacs key memory. I end up using the backtick, but it does make sharing a session that little bit more difficult.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> tmux always seems kind of cool but I have a hard time seeing an advantage over just running multiple terminal windows, using mosh if remote.

<comment><USER3> Being able to bring up my shell session if I accidentally quit the terminal emulator has been a really helpful feature for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I could never get into tmux since it doesn't play nicely with iTerm2 and the mouse. With iTerm2 panes, you can select/copy/paste text within the pane even if it's over multiple lines. In a tmux session, you select all text across all panes.

Ditto goes for scrolling: Native windows scroll more naturally than tmux with mouse support.

<comment><USER19> Agree- this is a "pain." When I want to select text I make all panes horizontal. Not elegant, but it works. Then I put them back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Took me a while to figure out why I had to press C-b twice to go back in emacs. Reconfigure your tmux prefix ;)

<comment><USER21> I had "fun" nesting ansi-terms with tmux sessions of emacs in emacs (as you do).

so much quinning

<comment><USER20> C-b C-b C-b C-b. Oh my... happened to me too. I think this is when I finally understood what was happening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've never used tmux because I've always used screen. Is there a reason to drop screen for tmux?

<comment><USER23> Two words: vertical splits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Apparently I'm the only one who doesn't mind ctrl-b as the prefix.

</comment><comment><USER25> been using mosh + tmux for couple years and it's been great. Amazing how a tiny bit of work flow improvement increase productivity.

</comment><comment><USER26> Highly recommended: byobu, a screen+tmux configuration that works well and is available on Ubuntu and in other places.

</comment><comment><USER27> Awesome Guide. Definitely liking the move to tmux!

</comment><comment><USER28> my minimalist guide to tmux : I use byobu.</comment>


Hobby Lobby Illegally Imported Cuneiform into the United States from Iraq - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/nyregion/hobby-lobby-artifacts-smuggle-iraq.html <comment><USER2> "new to the world of acquiring these items" Oh, smuggling is illegal?

</comment><comment><USER3> Magical thinking apparently includes freedom from respecting laws and ethics, and cheaping out on family planning for more magical "reasons."

</comment><comment><USER4> in this universe, apparently L. Bob Rife owns a crafts store, not CNN.

now, where'd i put my google glass...</comment>


Things you can do with ZFS [video] - vezzy-fnord https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXOZmDoy2Co <comment><AUTHOR> You can ZFS send and receive to rsync.net.[1]

[1] [http://www.rsync.net/products/zfsintro.html](http://www.rsync.net/products/zfsintro.html)

<comment><USER2> > rsync.net now supports ZFS send and receive over SSH

> If you're not sure what this means, our product is Not For You.

Ha! Love it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Can you have your / in linux in zfs?

<comment><USER4> Sure, if your /boot is something else.

<comment><USER5> Not required, some versions of Grub can read from ZFS just fine.

<comment><USER6> Ubuntu 16.04 should come with "official" ZFS from Ubuntu[1].

Hopefully this means everything, including booting from ZFS, should work out of the box.

[1] [http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ubuntu- ZF...](http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ubuntu-ZFS-Standard- Plans)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The one thing I know how to do really well with ZFS is get confused by the extended ACLs!

</comment><comment><USER8> Things you can't do with ZFS:

\- Use it together with GPL-licensed software

<comment><USER9> The thing I miss most in ZFS (aside from a native in-kernel linux port, as I've found ZoL to be kinda buggy) is to be able to grow zdevs. I can add a new zdev, I can remove them, but I can't add one disk to my 7-disk RAIDZ2. MD RAID has no problem with this.

Also, if you add zdevs later, you will never get full performance again as the striping will be off (putting more writes on the zdevs with more free space), and there's no 'rebalance' kind of thing (I've seen some scripts that just move stuff around, but I've never seen any evidence that they work, and I really doubt that they do based on my understanding of zdev allocation).

<comment><USER10> I'm assuming you mean vdevs — you can resize zvols (virtual block devices) just fine. (and you can even grow disk-type vdevs, though they'll be somewhat unbalanced)

<comment><USER9> Yeah, sorry, edited. It's mainly the ability to resize RAIDZ or RAIDZ2 zdevs that would be really helpful.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, first impressions? - <AUTHOR>

New look, full screen apps, Mission Control, Mail, Safari, "natural" scrolling and new gestures (I returned to the trackpad), Versions, some issues (mine with the new SMBX). What do you think so far? <comment><USER3> I found that I liked things that I didn't think I would:

\- I like the new scroll bars, though I had to immediately reverse the setting because I couldn't get used to their behavior (probably right for a track pad, but wrong for a mouse scroll wheel). It is even shocking how useful they can be, e.g. in column views such as file save dialogs I don't think I realized before how much space was wasted by scroll bars.

\- I also don't mind Launch Pad, although Launch Pad still seems like it tries too hard to shoehorn in an exact implementation from iOS. A big screen with a mouse should yield more flexibility; it would be especially nice to be able to leave spaces between icons and to group them _while still showing all icons_ instead of putting them in a folder like iOS does.

\- Other random changes to the UI are generally pretty good. Though I think sliders suck (they look too dim and unclickable now), and the decision to make tab segments metallic seems out of place with the Aqua look that remains everywhere else. Similarly, darkening the blue shade of menu selections seems mismatched compared to everything else.

Many features are _maddeningly_ useless on dual-display machines. Full Screen inexplicably blanks out an _entire display_ with no apparent way to make use of the other one; it even _moves_ windows that started on the 2nd display over to the first before entering Full Screen mode! Mission Control is obviously aware of multiple screens, but the way they did it still seems kludgey to me. It is frankly as if Apple didn't even bother to try supporting multiple displays well, even though they're perfectly happy to sell you systems that encourage this (expensive) hardware arrangement. Like Xcode, Instruments, iTunes and other new one-window apps, this trend is extremely irritating because it's as if the entire potential of my display is being actively shunned by the software side.

Animations are about half-and-half; some are quite nice (like for alert boxes), but most are simply too slow and weren't user-tested properly. Full Screen for instance takes a ridiculously long time, as does switching Spaces, and these delays are unacceptable.

There is a general sluggishness to the new OS in areas besides animation. Sometimes applications seem to take longer to open, and windows take longer to open. It is not clear why.

I prefer to minimize windows into the application icon, and this is kind of a step backwards on Lion: Apple no longer shows these in Exposé (Mission Control). The _only_ apparent way to get them back is via a new dock menu item "Show All Windows". In other words, that preference is no longer useful.

I think the new Mail is brilliantly designed.

The inclusion of FaceTime is nice I guess, but I know absolutely no one who uses it (the other instant messengers like Skype are king now, I'm sorry to say).

In general, a pretty good upgrade, and absolutely worth thirty bucks.

</comment><comment><USER4> Disclaimer: was running GM for a few weeks.

Love:

* Never been a Spaces user, neither do I use Exposé but I found myself using Mission Control more and more. It feels very natural to my workflow possibly because I hate having an empty spaces around and partly due to gestures.

* Full screen apps is awesome, especially if you use web apps. Currently I created a new Safari window in fullscreen running IRCCloud, I could "peek" that window simply by three-fingers swiping to the right to see if there's any activities in channel I'm on (but not switch to it). I think more (desktop) apps should utilize this. Put some activities on left and right side of the window to allow peeking without leaving the current desktop.

* I thought scrolling was stupid at first, but with Trackpad and a mindset of "control the content, not widget", it kind of make sense.

* Mail.app is a bless for non-Gmail IMAP user like me. It has almost everything I want from a Mail client. My only complaint is that it lacks proper email address aliasing support.

* FileVault 2 no longer randomly eats up my data and transparent to all applications due to the fact it's now disk-level encryption rather than an encrypted disk image. Never did a benchmark, but the performance impact doesn't seems noticeable.

* 256 COLORS SUPPORT IN TERMINAL.

Dislike:

* "New window" effect, it adds a lot of delay and adds nothing in terms of usability.

Unsure:

* I want to like Versions, but couldn't get myself to like it. There's this one time when I open an existing file, accidentally delete half of it, close the window to try to restore its previous state but TextEdit simply overwrite the file on exit.

</comment><comment><USER5> Scrolling was stupid. Changed, even with a magic mouse.

Airport Express configuration was less robust (couldn't save config options), but the host router was pure crap. Somehow SL's utility could deal with the QoS issues.

Couldn't install automatically with a tweaked boot camp install, gave up, added a partition and am going back-and-forth migrating. The installer was amazingly robust, running from HDD, external HDD and thumb drive, however it crashed and burned with my boot camp issue. It's like that Larson cartoon of the kid who couldn't get into the school.

Scrolling is jerkier than SL, despite having a pristine system. I assume it's the new install of Safari.

Mail is ok, it seemed to accept the [Gmail] prefix better, and was easy to configure.

Full screen is nice on a single display. Hopefully Apple fixes the dual monitor issues before I buy a secondary display. Full screen terminal.app is great, though. Especially with sliding back and forth.

I really, _really_ like the new lock screen. It's my biggest gripe with the OS since I started using a mac back in '04. I no longer am jealous of Windows 7 users.

Gestures aren't as configurable as I'd like. I miss two-finger back, and would like three finger space change.

Spotlight's global sheet is wider; hooray!

I like being able to hide the useless options in system preferences. No longer does "Ink" have to leave a widow option in the row.

The new scroll bars are mediocre, they apparently don't add width to the containing box's size, so in NetNewsWire they overlay the unread items.

</comment><comment><USER6> On my macbook (because I suspect some of these things might not work quite so well on a desktop without a magic pad).

It took me a day to get used to the multi gesture, now I'm loving it. Oddly enough my favorite new UI feature is the launch pad, which I heckled when I saw screen shots of. The iPad interface is very clean as easy to navigate/find stuff (after a reorder) compared to my messy application folder.

The hardest part was the reverse in scroll, I had to completely relearn that behave. I initially checked the box to reverse it back to normal, and then I realized they where right in context to left and right scrolling. So I swapped it back, and I think I made the correct choice now... haven't tried a mouse however... 20 years of mouse behavior is not going to change easy I can guarantee.

The new finder preview is FAST, and show images at true size which is awesome.

I'm toying with turning off the dock lights for whats active ATM after reading an article to do with focus. When something isn't running you aren't tempted to toy with it, you stay on task. It feels weird at first, but then remembering everything is viewable in Exposé any way I'm letting go.

Dropping java support was an unneeded annoyance. Having to download a 10.7 specific version made me groan (but I suspect it may have been part of the security upgrades).

Overall I'm extremely happy with it. Would love to try a new full screen apps to see if it increases focus or not, but currently none of my favorite apps support it.

</comment><comment><USER7> All in all a very pleasant upgrade. After reading about all the new features and iOS-like feel, I was surprised at how the changes seem really gradual.

pros: still the most elegant OS, the performance seems a bit snappier (just my feeling). cons: The grayness of all the UI elements (e.g. Finder windows) together with the more square appearance of the buttons creates a more somber, less playful atmosphere.

</comment><comment><USER8> As someone who did use Spaces quite a lot for separating different projects/tools, I'm a little sad about Mission Control. I agree with the new unified direction, but the functionality is a step backwards. You can't rearrange desktops anymore, which completely cripples it for me.

The nicest thing about Spaces was that I could use my spatial memory to keep track of my applications, ie "oh, yes, that editor window is to the left of this other one, and the browser is underneath". Unfortunately, now it's more like "which tiny black editor window is the one I want? I can't see from the expose view, time to swipe like mad until I find it".

I'm sure they'll fix it in a future update, but right now it does, unfortunately, suck. It's surprising, because the fix seems so simple - <USER2> old Spaces let you rearrange desktops by dragging, so it's not like the interface metaphor isn't figured out. The OS can rearrange them for you, so the backend must support it. Maybe they just ran out of time.

<comment><USER9> Fully agree. I wish they'd left Spaces in, maybe just enabled Mission Control by default. I would pay to have spaces back, rather than MC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think it's interesting how every single person I work with initially hated the new scrolling, but after a couple days of using it has come to believe we've been scrolling wrong for the past 18 years.

Nudging the content inside the window the way you want it to move actually is more natural than adjusting the perspective through which you look at the content. Definitely takes some getting used to, though.

</comment><comment><USER11> My biggest gripe is some of the apps, drivers, etc... are not compatible. Some don't work at all, some have limited functionality. Things behave weird (in an unnatural way). Outside of these things so far, the OS is a major improvement. If anything, I would recommend holding off on upgrading just yet for those that haven't. I went back to Snow Leopard for now.

<comment><USER12> Did you try booting in 32 bit mode, I have found most of the apps that did not work would work if I booted into 32 bit mode.

<comment><USER11> Sorry for the late response but I did not. I have 8gb of ram and would prefer to stay with 64-bit. That said, I'm now on Lion since most of the updates have been done since my original comment. A few minor pains but overall I am okay with it now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have never used Spaces before, but ever since I've installed Lion, Mission Control has been amazing. Of course, this is partly due to the trackpad, which allows me to switch between them with a couple fingers. If I were on a desktop machine, I doubt Mission Control would be as convenient.

<comment><USER14> Magic Trackpad makes it just as awesome on a desktop machine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> like:

* Loving full-screen terminal.

* Haven't tried AirDrop, but it seems useful (especially in a small office setting).

dislike:

* The new scrolling direction. It felt foreign, whereas on an iDevice it felt natural. Changed it back to the old way.

* The app opening 'grow' animation (most apparent with safari). It makes things feel slower.

* Large icons in the finder sidebar. Changed to 'small' and it seems better.

<comment><USER16> I kept the default scrolling direction to see how long it would take to get used to the reversed motions. After 2-3 days you switch over without much of a problem. I did have trouble using the scrollwheel on the mouse of a Windows machine recently, though.

<comment><USER15> hmm. I might have to give it another try and see if it feels better after a few days then. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> After upgrading, my wireless connection drops every five minutes or so. After a few days of this I switched to using my Windows 7 install primarily.

</comment><comment><USER18> lion's the new vista</comment>


N-dimensional medians, and a hybrid between median and average - cool-RR http://cool-rr.com/median

<comment><AUTHOR> This seems like such a good generalization that I almost can't believe it hasn't been discovered before. (Also nice to see an article where the author wants the material to be understandable instead of trying to impress us with unnecessary complexity)

<comment> cool-RR It was indeed discovered before. My goal was, exactly as you said it, to make the material easily understandable.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think this could also be used to calculate the mode?

lim n->0 argmin(x,sum(abs(x-s)^n))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Very cool. That i variable becomes how much you want outliers to matter. i could go higher than 2 and you'd really get skewed numbers.

</comment><comment><USER3> A relevant toy I threw together once to demonstrate finding a median/mean/centroid by minimizing a cost defined by "springs": <http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~murray/04medoid/>

</comment><comment><USER4> So these are the means in the L^r norms, with r in the reals rather than the integers?

<comment><USER5> That's what I got out of it too (well, substituting "natural centrality measures" for "means"), except it bothers me that for n dimensions, it looks like he uses L₂ for the vector norm.

I'd much prefer argmin 𝐱( sum 𝐬∈Sⁿ sum j≤n |𝐬ⱼ-𝐱ⱼ|^i )</comment></comment>