Being OK with not being extraordinary - <AUTHOR> https://www.tiffanymatthe.com/not-extraordinary <comment><USER5> > Climbing to a higher vantage point can also unlock new forms of > extraordinary that you might have never noticed before.

I read an article once about how the amount of work to get into the top tier in a single area is astronomical, but the amount of work to become top tier in a combination of 2-3 fields is attainable by almost anyone.

For example, becoming a top tier statistician is hard. But becoming a top tier statistician/programmer is easier. In other words, if you can get to a state where you know more statistics than your average programmer and more programming than your average statistician, then suddenly you are an above- average programmer/statistician. Keep improving those two skills and you may start to "unlock new forms of extraordinary". Or maybe you are a music teacher, and also pretty good at programming, and so you can make extraordinary music teaching software that is way better than the competition's because you understand the nuances of music teaching intimately enough that you capture them clearly in software requirements. Or maybe you are pretty good at art, pretty good at music composition, pretty good at programming, pretty good at story telling (not necessarily top tier in any one category though)... and you combine all of those skills to single-handedly create a game that by many measures is extraordinary[0][1].

Something like that. Anyway, the point being, you may not be extraordinary in any one field, but it isn't too hard to achieve extraordinary things due to a combination of skills in multiple fields if you work at it.

[0] [https://undertale.com/](https://undertale.com/)

[1] [https://www.cavestory.org/](https://www.cavestory.org/)

<comment><USER6> This is my career so far in a nutshell.

I'm an average programmer.

I'm an excellent problem solver.

I have an above average work ethic.

I'm an excellent communicator.

Basically, I combined all of these traits and found roles that leveraged these traits to maximize my impact.

Not for nothing, but this is why my liberal arts college was profoundly impactful for me, despite not getting a "top tier" CS education. My writing abilities were given a shot in the arm, because I had to write so many analysis papers for my government minor. My understanding of human behavior was expanded by my psychology courses. My understanding of how I should never design a UI was solidified by how poorly I did during a year of art classes.

Some days I wish I was as strong mathematically as my friends who went to MIT, or as talented with programming languages as my friends who went to Cambridge, but each one of us have been able to have successful careers, despite our differences in breadth/depth.

<comment><USER7> How do you do leverage these strengths? I have a somewhat similar profile and I simply feel like a fish judged by its ability to climb a tree.

Yet, I:

\- Help with hiring/marketing/leading scrum sessions (when the actual scrum master is ill)

\- Conduct pentests

\- Do the frontend and backend (what I was hired to do)

If they'd let me, I'd help with the writing efforts as well as my writing ability is better than that of the average developer, if I have to believe my grades on any report in any degree that I did (game studies, psychology and CS).

<comment><USER6> Join companies with problems worth solving, add value as quickly as possible, and then find problems that you can tackle and start advocating to be granted the latitude to tackle them.

Most companies and teams are thrilled to have people who proactively seek to solve thorny issues. The difference with me is that most programmers are attracted to solving "problems" in a code base, which might add value but have arguable ROI. I'm rarely the person who advocates for a rewrite or tries to push some hot new technology. I'm almost always the engineer who asks the question "how can we apply what we've already written to this new sector" or "how do we change up this experience to cut onboarding time in half" etc.

<comment><USER8> Better take, to add in to this:

My unique (well one of) internalized properties I have is having a keen eye for good problem to technology fit. Steve Jobs said it best with

"start with the experience and work backwards toward the technology"

In another words, it's extremely valuable to be able to understand when you can re use an existing tool (in this case, existing code) to achieve the result, which is different from trying to shoehorn your existing code to fix/improve/add a feature to an existing problem space or product domain.

That's the real key, to me, in a nutshell

(And why I almost never buy in on complete re writes)

<comment><USER9> My other knowledge is in biology, but bioinformatics seems to pay less than normal software engineering.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There are lots of people reacting to the extraordinary with "inspiration", "disappointment", and "jealousy".

I'd say none of these are as useful as reacting with _curiosity_. There's an endless amount to learn from the extraordinary in any field or sport or hobby. It's easy to write off the extraordinary as naturally talented or lucky or something else surface level. Most of the time it's anything but.

I play golf. It's a game that can be extraordinarily frustrating to beginners. It often takes years of hard work to just be moderately adequate at the game. Going into it with disappointment or jealousy of extraordinary golfers will quickly lead them to quit as they'll be way too stressed out to enjoy the game. Those who go into it with inspiration or admiration of those who are better won't be able to sustain it when the inspiration burns out.

 _Curiosity_ is the only emotion I've found that is sustainable. Endless curiosity as you try to figure out and piece together what makes someone good at what they do. It's an emotion that sustains because it's the only emotion that is useful both when you hit a bad shot and when you hit a good shot. It's useful both when you watch someone who is worse than you, and when you watch someone who is better than you.

<comment><USER11> Disclaimer: I ask this to explore the truth in your comment, not to be pedantic about your choice of terms.

> Curiosity is the only emotion I've found that's sustainable.

It jumped out at me that curiosity technically isn't an emotion, but might be better labeled a state of mind. So the natural follow-up question for me is: What are some ways to help oneself get in that state of mind?

The professor that taught my "logic" class in college would say that feelings and actions come about as a result of _beliefs_. So what kinds of beliefs lead to feeling inspired/disappointed/jealous? And in contrast, what kinds of beliefs tend to lead one to curiosity?

<comment><USER10> Emotion, reaction, state of mind, whatever floats your boat. I think I got my point across.

As for how to get into the curiosity mindset, and how to push away the other states of mind, I don't have a full answer for you. My personal strategies stem from a somewhat related area of study: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. I'm able to push away the negative thoughts like disappointment/jealousy/anger and substitute it with curiosity. I don't necessarily find inspiration or other "positive" states of mind something I need to push away, I'm just aware that it's fleeting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best. Don't think about what you want to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum with other things so that society doesn't stop you from doing anything at all." ― Richard P. Feynman

"Comparison is the thief of joy." \- Teddy Roosevelt

To me, "extraordinary" is a state of being rather than doing. Don't worry about what you want to be, but just what you want to do. Do things and be alive in the experience, and stop worrying so much about how you stack up against others. You're all going to die, live while you can.

<comment><USER13> It's too easy for rich successful people who have made it to declare that you should follow your passion. We wouldn't hear a quote from the dozens of lesser-known physicists who struggled and wouldn't recommend the field, we just hear the quote from Feynman who was the lucky one.

For instance, I love painting and woodworking, but I suffer no illusions that I would do "well" in those fields, as even far more talented and experienced individuals that I know in those fields are struggling mightily and envy my hobbyist status.

<comment><USER12> They clearly aren't struggling if you think they are far more talented. They are just struggling _financially_. Which is what all these hang-ups are about, including your own.

<comment><USER14> It's not a hang up if you can't pay your bills or afford to take a vacation once in a while. Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs does require us to meet some basic needs regardless of our passions.

Even if you are an extraordinary woodworker, if you can barely meet rent, you are unlikely to find any happiness due to the stress you will need to manage day-to-day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The internet has made everyone feel inadequate as it's easy to compare yourself to people you see on the internet. Couple of things to keep in mind if your comparing yourself:

1\. There aren't as many uber successful people out there as the internet makes it seem. It's far fewer than you think. Lets take a simple example of dudes who go to the gym and are strong. Instagram makes it seem like all dudes bench press 400 lbs and have a 6 pack. In my 15 years of going to the gym (ive been to several dozen all across the world) there are less than 5 people I've personally seen who've bench pressed even 300 lbs. Apply this to any field and it's going to be true.If you take programming for instance I'm yet to meet a person who's performing at the standard I had set for myself (become a 10x programmer).

2\. Lots of people are really good at marketing themselves, which inflates the number of people you think are extraordinary.

There aren't that many people at the world class level, the internet makes it seem there are more of these than there are. Just relax and do the things you enjoy.

<comment><USER16> University also taught me that some people are genuinely better than me. I'm a much happier person since I learned to let it be so.

<comment><USER17> University taught me that I was better than everyone, and then real life taught me that I was just another smart idiot with a lot to learn. The problem is that universities don't really prepare you for living your best life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wrote this for myself when considering a big career move a few years ago:

It's easy to focus on the next promotion or the completion of a big project that will elevate your career.

By succumbing to the natural instinct of mimicry, we rarely ask ourselves the question: are we climbing the right hill?

In this analogy, the hills represent any long-term goal: career, fulfillment, financial security. Our natural instinct is to walk upward, chasing the next promotion or job opportunity. However, we lose the virtue of randomness by doing this. If your only benchmark is the hill you've always known, you have no way to gauge its relative steepness. It's a good way to reach a local maxima, but not necessarily the best long-term option.

Instead, I allow myself to explore other options, even if it seems "downhill". For naturally ambitious people, it can seem downright impossible to avoid this instinct. It's hard, and often feels unnatural. However, the perspective gained from these excursions improves my mental map and I'm able to learn what lies on other hills. Taking this mindset means letting go of the mimetic behavior that leads to jealousy or comparison.

After all, why should it matter if someone else is higher? Your peak is somewhere else entirely.

[https://sundayscaries.substack.com/p/climbing-the-right- hill...](https://sundayscaries.substack.com/p/climbing-the-right-hill-)

<comment><USER19> That's an amazing viewpoint. Thanks for sharing. It inspired me to change my mindset.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've made well into eight figures by taking almost the opposite approach. As a kid, all I wanted to do was get the fuck out of my unsafe neighborhood and never go back. When I was young I read a lot of biographies of successful people. What I got out of it was that they just worked a lot harder than most, and failed more than most.

Later I observed that there were people dumber than I was with better jobs than I had, and I took that as a positive sign. It meant that just by working hard, I could get those jobs too.

And one thing reading all those biographies told me was that many of these ultra-accomplished people paid a heavy price, usually in their personal lives. I decided I would rather be a happy millionaire with a family than an unhappy billionaire with two or three ex-wives.

I taught myself how to program, took some writing classes in a junior college, and taught myself business and investing by doing dry runs on paper. The kinds of programming I did were fairly challenging, because as a person without a degree I knew I would have to work harder than people who had one. I also stuck to programming that I liked, but that also had a likely long commercial future.

Eventually I was able to parlay all of this into what this website calls a "lifestyle business", one that has let me stay home and raise children while still earning a great living over the last few decades. I have hit a fair number of singles and doubles, plus a triple or two. At my age now I'm not going to make a billion, But I own a couple of houses outright, have a retirement fund that can help support very high medical bills for medically fragile family members, and I can take care of my handicapped kid until I die.

All of this came from keeping my expectations lower than the author's. I was thinking not in terms of what I "should" be able to accomplish, but what I could accomplish if I worked hard and smart.

<comment><USER21> I have a similar background, but right now I'm just taking a salary as a software engineer and looking to expand that. Have you written more about your path so someone like me could learn from it?

<comment><USER20> Talked about it a few years ago on Reddit. Feel free to check my profile to contact me. I love talking business.

[https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/3gbx78/til_th...](https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/3gbx78/til_that_the_founder_of_esnipe_a_website_that/ctxadbl/?context=3)

[https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/3gbx78/til_th...](https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/3gbx78/til_that_the_founder_of_esnipe_a_website_that/ctxlaji/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Maybe this is offtopic, but I made my peace with this kind of anxiety once I met, interacted and worked with people who were really very very good at what they do.

I let me ego go.

It's ok to be normal. And it's ok to get to learn from the masters.

I once read a O Henry short story where the three main characters are at different places in society financially and in terms of power. But they still found some meaning when they accidentally meet each other during the course of the story.

Their relative stature and standing in the world didn't affect what they thought of each other when they met.

It was kind of an uncanny, uplifting little story. Don't remember its name though.

<comment><USER23> Is this the story you're referring to? [https://americanliterature.com/author/o-henry/short- story/th...](https://americanliterature.com/author/o-henry/short-story/the- man-higher-up)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Extraordinary also comes in many forms, and its value does not have to be > measured in terms of money.

Great point though underdeveloped in the article. Clocking out at 5 so you can spend time with a healthy, happy, well-adjusted, loving family is pretty extraordinary these days.

<comment><USER25> For what it's worth, you may have a heavily skewed view of what's extraordinary "these days." There are lots of tech companies that are mature enough to not flog their people to death. Companies with strong engineering cultures that also highly value _seasoned_ developers tend to be this way. Where I work, the office is (well, _was_ pre-covid) pretty empty by 5:30.

<comment><USER26> There are two sides to this coin; sometimes some late hours are unavoidable -- I don't blame my employer for it, they're not forcing me to work these hours at all, but I think if you're a professional you can't avoid such circumstances sometimes and that's why we get $megabucks right?

The right mix for me is working like a daemon about 9 months a year then having 3 months off, but YMMV..

<comment><USER27> I find most people working those long hours to save the day could have designed a better solution up front and not needed those late hours at the last minute. Not always, but often they should have known and fixed the problem long before then.

<comment><USER25> I think it sometimes comes down to a matter of choice in working styles. Some people thrive on killing themselves at times. I've been there. I will still occasionally pull a late-nighter because I get in "the zone" and am actually enjoying the productivity and I still get the condescending comments about how if you planned properly, that wouldn't be necessary, but I think that some people just don't get that working like that can actually be very gratifying. I'm getting a bit old for doing it more than about once a quarter, though, whereas I used to do it a couple times a week.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I appreciate what you wrote, OP - moderating my ambition is both essential to my mental health and an ongoing process. I do not exaggerate when I say that in my case I believe the stakes are life and death.

One thing that has helped me a lot to find peace here has been becoming a father. Culturally, it comes with a kind of license to finally just accept mediocrity which I find freeing. Bills are paid, I can watch my son grow up, doesn't matter than I'm not the best at anything.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's nice to hear that you've found some peace! There's no point in being the best if you will crash and burn quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Archive.org cache: [http://web.archive.org/web/20200824155533/https://www.tiffan...](http://web.archive.org/web/20200824155533/https://www.tiffanymatthe.com/not- extraordinary/)

</comment><comment><USER30> Extraordinary is boring. If one wants to draw as good as Michelangelo Buonarroti, or play the alto sax technically as well as Charlie Parker, one has to put in the hours. Imagine only having one interest? Example: Michelangelo and Charlie practiced or executed their craft incessantly.

"In an interview with Paul Desmond, Parker said that he spent three to four years practicing up to 15 hours a day."

"If people knew how hard I worked to get my mastery, it wouldn't seem so wonderful at all." ~ Michelangelo

I argue that one is more employable, more accomplished and has more opportunities if one is average, or above average, in five separate disciplines. Has more diverse friendships too.

<comment><USER31> I don't really want to be Charlie Parker extraordinary, I just want to be Harvard CS major who makes $500k as a T5 at Google extraordinary. I assure you, that person has more diverse friendships and more leisure time than I do.

<comment><USER32> Note that "that person" is not actually a specific person, but merely your image of one.

<comment><USER31> I mean I can probably go on LinkedIn right now and find someone that fits these loose criteria. They're fairly common!

<comment><USER33> If your definition of "fairly common" is something like a ~1% chance, then sure.

<comment><USER34> Certainly more common than Michelangelo-level artists! I think the OP's point was that you don't need to be the absolute best in your field, or even that close, to be rewarded handsomely.

<comment><USER30> There are artist all over instagram that can do anatomy better than Michelangelo. In fact Michelangelo never painted a portrait because he couldn't do it. Leonardo could but Leonardo could not sculpt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> > creators can get just as much value out of creating their original content > and connecting with like-minded people.

Strong resonance here. I recently became more prolific about blogging, and this was the mindset that helps me stay consistent. I find that the mere act of writing an essay helps me clarify my own thoughts, and the essay often changes in the process.

As a recent example, I started writing out about how I struggled and got over impostor syndrome. But while writing it I realized: wait, I never actually get over it. Rather, I learned how to use it to my advantage [1]

How to do that became the message of the article.

If my writing never brings fame, I won't care. It helped me understand myself and it will help me better advise the people I care about

[1] [https://www.zainrizvi.io/blog/the-impostors- advantage/](https://www.zainrizvi.io/blog/the-impostors-advantage/)

<comment><USER36> This is the reason I started working towards getting better a note taking. Describing what I'm learning in my own words may help me retain the information better.

I don't publish it because I don't know anyone cares but I feel like it helps myself regardless, and keeping them searchable seems like it should pay off at some point.

<comment><USER37> Any notes :) or resources on note-taking you can share? I am currently studying and have been struggling in that area.

<comment><USER35> I've written an article comparing a couple of the more popular note taking strategies. It was even on the HN front page 13 hours ago :)

[https://www.zainrizvi.io/blog/remembering-what-you-read- zett...](https://www.zainrizvi.io/blog/remembering-what-you-read-zettelkasten- vs-para/)

HN link: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24251068#24262190](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24251068#24262190)

<comment><USER37> Thanks for linking. The amount of content on here is astronomical, it is impossible to keep up with things you care about and have a healthy life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> As I have gotten older, one of the things I have come to understand is that the people who are leading figures in fields of human effort are just wired differently. We might describe them as "devoting" their entire lives to those fields, but "devoting" isn't the right word. It's not that they "work harder" or "put in more hours," it's that they experience every thing in their lives through the prism of their "chosen" field. They can't help but think of physics or art or design when they encounter any thing. It's not rational or intentional exactly (though they certainly aren't trying to change themselves) - it's about being oriented towards something in a pure way. Even the idea of "choosing" a field is deceptive, because there is some level of natural inclination that's required to be influential at a high level.

What I mean is that I think people are barking up the wrong tree when they talk about "working towards being the best." We can all work harder, and I think we should all consider doing so, but no amount of working harder will let you see every experience as a lesson in physics. Those kinds of holistic engagement in a subject come from someplace other than exercises of self control and are, I think, probably pretty harmful to the overall well being of the person involved.

I'm happy that I can put work down at the end of the day, and the people in my life are happy that I can too.

<comment><USER39> Agreed, I've met one of these people and discussed this trait with them. He described it as an obsession, something resembling OCD that he was literally unable to function, or would go crazy, if he didn't sit down and do the work his brain was forcing him to do.

Before we talked, I was jealous of such people. Now, I consider myself lucky to be free from that burden. Life is all about tradeoffs, nothing is given without taking something else away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I agree with the premise here in general. There have certainly been times when I've wanted to accomplish something, but then I see someone else being exceptional at that task and I stop wanting to do it because I know I'll never be that good at it.

When you see someone doing something you do or want to do, and they are exceptional at it, it either becomes inspirational or discouraging based on just how extraordinary it is and how emotionally attached you are to the subject. If you are emotionally committed to it, seeing someone else doing it well will likely be inspirational. If not, you're more likely to give up before you even start.

<comment><USER41> What can help here is to understand that you'll never be able to do it exactly like the person you're comparing yourself to because you are not them.

Conversely, no one else will be able to do it exactly like you. So figure out what it is about how you do it that's uniquely you and try to develop that.

<comment><USER42> Even in a professional setting, it's important to remember this and not give up.

Even a person with outsize presence in your field, they can't be everywhere at once. So their rates climb and climb and the size of their projects increases to try accomplish more in the time available. They also literally don't have time for people arguing with their vision.

There are a lot of people that could never be their customers, but could easily be yours, and nobody's perfect. Trying to get skilled at things they overlook will make you your own person.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Just work in a couple of prominent research labs, like I did. You'll be quickly disabused of the notion that you're in any way "extraordinary". At best you can say that you know more than other people in your particular niche. But then you have to concede that other people know more than you do in their niche. There are, however, real freaks out there who know more than you in any niche they decide they need to know something in. What takes you year takes them hours. What takes you hours takes no effort at all - it's immediately obvious. Some of them are humble about this, some aren't humble at all. It can be fascinating or demoralizing, depending on how attached you are to the false notion of your "extraordinarity". Unfortunately for humanity there are only very few of such people. I can't help but think that this is how human mind is supposed to be, and the rest of us are just deficient.

<comment><USER31> I know I'm not anywhere close to extraordinary, but it still makes my heart ache seeing someone with a Google or MIT hoodie or a RocksDB jacket on my evening walk.

I'll settle for being considered more than just a mental defective just because I work at Amazon.

<comment><USER43> You'd probably have a heart attack if you knew what I worked on. And yet, I know full well I'm just average, and it doesn't bother me anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> If you're a 1 in 100 type, you've likely had feeling that because you're more capable than literally almost everyone, you should be achieving things more like the people you read about in books or online. But unless you've read 80 million biographies, those people are _not_ 1 in a 100. They're more like 1 in million. And once you reach the truly great, like Einstein, then it's 1 in a billion (or more).

You are not 1 in a billion. You may very well be 1 in 100, though. And that's still pretty incredible. Take, for example the author of this article. She might think that she's not extraordinary because she's not an Einstein, or whatever. However, she works somewhere called "the Quantum Matter Institute" \-- that's something that 99% of people probably could not accomplish. So honestly I would be surprised if most people who knew her _didn 't_ think that she was extraordinary.

<comment><USER33> > You may very well be 1 in 100, though. And that's still pretty incredible

Is it though? There are 7 billion people on the planet, 1/100 is means you're 1 of 70,000,000 people in that group.

It's odd. Being 1/100 in your day to day life means people probably think you're quite smart, but on a global scale it's quite depressing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Personal anecdote - I became very good at one activity early on in life. This was at the expense of other things such as education and a social life. The dedication required to reach a high level of skill, and the journey overall was great fun and taught me a lot about what it takes to reach the top.

What impact has this had on me? It opened a lot of doors for me early on. Ultimately I faced a decision, do I pursue a single thing to its sharpest point, or do I widen my range and create my own category to become sharp in?

There is something deeply rewarding in being a master of one trade. But becoming a jack of all trades offers a different kind of reward which I feel is more sustainable (at least in my case).

I have a deep affinity towards people who have pushed the boundaries in some area of their life, and feel very lucky to have experienced the same.

Which path would I pick? Jack of all.

<comment><USER33> I think there is something to be said about being a master in something _before_ becoming a jack of all trades.

It seems to me that like you said, dedicating yourself to something can open a lot of doors. More than if you had become above average at multiple things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> See also: _The Infinite Game_ by Simon Sinek. Great read (based on a previous work, _Finite and Infinite Games_ by James Carse) on the need to play on a different playing field than the one that supposedly has a 'winner' and a 'loser.' Applies to companies, individuals, organizations, relationships...you get the idea.

To beat a dead analogy, if you're climbing to reach the top 'ledge' you started out looking for, you might not start...or you might climb with such a singular focus that you miss another path that would take you off to the side and up another, higher route.

 _Edited for formatting._

<comment><USER47> I don't think people should take anything from Simon Sinek. His presentation skills are great I must admit.

<comment><USER48> So, as of this comment, all I know is that Simon Sinek has a book called The Infinite Game. This book has an interesting premise, about which I just read a short writeup and analysis. I have also been told that Sinek has excellent presentation skills.

Strangely, in the middle of these two comments, I was told that people should not take anything from Simon Sinek. Why?

<comment><USER49> He has a tendency to substantiate his views with bad takes on science.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I think it's important to also reframe what extraordinary even means. Many people are comparing themselves to the most privileged of backgrounds - <USER2> they were at the top from birth and only had to get a bit higher. I'm considered extraordinary in comparison to the place I grew up - just because of my background and where I am now.

On top of this - I am wary of being singly great at something. Living in Silicon Valley has reinforced this hard. I'm obviously comparing myself (unfairly) to people who are incredibly well compensated, maybe with some bullshit job title, and so forth. I've learned that - usually - those people are fucking terrible at everything else but that one thing they do. (Sometimes I'm not even sure what that one they do good at is - kiss ass?) I'm talking _really_ bad at everything else. They might be an excellent programmer and think up some fancy architecture or whatever - but they don't know how to install an app and follow some directions of their phone without some hand holding. Could they even build a computer from parts? Nah. Change oil in their car? It ain't happening in a million years. COOK!? Sorry - I only order out, my nanny cooks for the family, eat company food, or put pizza rolls in the oven. Take care of my kids and be an inspiring role model?! No - no, sorry, I didn't sign up for that... I had kids because I was bored after my second startup. Children aren't my passion!

Extraordinary usually requires compromise and I'm not one to compromise. I tend to look at things a bit like: I could be first place in one thing or 2nd in everything.

<comment><USER51> "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

Robert A. Heinlein

<comment><USER33> I would love to be able to do all those things. However, time is finite and so it's inevitable that you have to sacrifice some things.

<comment><USER51> Yeah, I don't know how to change a diaper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'm the most extraordinary software engineer in my office. I mean, it's my home office, but that still counts, right?

<comment><USER53> I dunno, you sound kind of average for the folks in your office.

<comment><USER54> It also seems like he's the least extraordinary software engineer in his office. The things you can do when you control the sample size.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Can we feel the same about our relationships?

Many people search for years for "the one" and an amazing connection, then settle for someone they can tolerate, and it turns out they have a good marriage and children and a lot of shared adventures. Looking back on it... would you say it's better to have spent decades searching for Mr/Ms Right, or married the one right now you can make a life with?

</comment><comment><USER56> I tried this for a few months after a few big projects didn't pan out. Tried forcing myself to focus only on the things in front of me, without allowing my mind to wander toward ideas for future grandeur. For me, that experience was horrible.

I've got to have something big in the pipeline in order to feel a purpose in life. Otherwise it is just a bunch of work with no point.

Maybe that's not the point that this article is trying to make. Maybe it's saying to be okay with not having already achieved greatness, or to be okay with the potential of never achieving greatness. Both of these are fine. Or to base your metric of greatness on someone else's who is unequivocally better at that measure than you are. You definitely don't want to do that. But I think it's a mistake to pigeonhole yourself as a person who absolutely cannot achieve greatness. You have to try.

</comment><comment><USER57> Thanks for sharing that.

In my experience, a lot of what we perceive as "extraordinary," is actually marketing. Some people are extraordinary self-promoters. It seems that every other person I see on LinkedIn announces that they are a "polymath."

Many of these folks are, in fact, really brilliant/creative/hard- working/whatever, but I have known folks that no one notices, that absolutely blow me away in their products and skills. No one notices them, because they don't stand around with megaphones.

They're too busy being extraordinary.

For me, I'm pretty good at what I do. Am I "extraordinary"? I don't really care. There's always some kid in a Hanoi Internet cafe that can shred my best, so I need to be happy with what I can do.

</comment><comment><USER58> Looking at extraordinary people can be both encouraging and disheartening. I've always wanted to practice drawing after seeing all the incredible things that extraordinary people can make. However, the more you dig into something, the more that chasm between you and the peak seems to widen.

The one point I appreciate about this article is how it points out that there are physical constraints that come with being extraordinary. With the example of drawing, reaching a higher level of understanding could be possible with more time dedication, though I personally may want to use my time for other purposes.

</comment><comment><USER59> Given the massive variation and diversity in humanity, to have a problem with not being extraordinary is like having a problem with existence itself.

When I think of extraordinary people i think of names like DaVinci. I'm perfectly happy not being on that level, i would be forever miserable otherwise.

Maybe i lack the intelligence to see my own short comings but at 44 i'm pretty sure I am who I'm going to be. I feel pretty ok about it. I don't have a Porsche GT3 in the garage and my name isn't on/in any books but it turned out not having those things aren't that big of a problem.

<comment> non-entity > is like having a problem with existence itself.

To be fair, I'm sure there are more than a few people who feel like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I feel there is a common trait of extraordinary people that anyone can develop and it pays dividends. That trait is industriousness. When you listen to interviews from successful people like Elon Musk all the way through to Arnold Schwarzenegger, they all talk about working hard.

Terry Toa almost failed the general exams at Princeton due to slacking off, and it was a valuable lesson for him. I don't care how gifted you are, you won't reach the top without working harder than others.

<comment><USER61> I call bullshit on the idea that industriousness is entirely learned. You can definitely improve it but research shows a significant part of it is genetic.

<comment><USER62> Personality traits account for something like 5% of the variance when it comes to life outcomes. Their usefulness comes from mostly analyzing huge groups of people and their differences in behavior than to be used as an individual measure. Most people can become significantly more or less industrious if they try. The same goes for other traits. In fact, I would say that part of your experience in life is nudging yourself more to the opposite side of what you're genetically given, i.e. if you're too industrious and too disagreeable, learn to be less (it's not so good to be hyper-competitive and hyper-focused all the time).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> _We need to redefine extraordinary._

Or, if you can't win, move the finish line.

<comment><USER64> I think they should've written this line as "don't be afraid to reevaluate your understanding of extraordinary" as it's pretty clear that's what they're doing in the article. This statement followed statements like "extraordinary as I perceived it" and "I feel disappointed, jealous."

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> backup as the site is down: [https://archive.vn/DGhBi](https://archive.vn/DGhBi)

This tweet bubbled up this weekend and it touched me: [https://twitter.com/ambernoelle/status/1297191195584663554](https://twitter.com/ambernoelle/status/1297191195584663554)

</comment><comment><USER66> extraordinary is "Beyond what is ordinary or usual."

This word brings about three thoughts...

1\. What is beyond ordinary? Who sets the direction? If it's more technical work, more creating, or more money... who sets that as a good or useful direction?

For example, a software developer who is ordinary as a developer but guides their children well could be extraordinary in that aspect. It may not make a list on the Internet but it is extremely valuable to people that (I assume) the software developer cares about.

Who is setting the direction for extraordinary we should care about?

2\. Ordinary is normal. If everyone becomes extraordinary that because the new normal. The target is constantly moving.

3\. Why does being extraordinary matter? Consider it for a moment. Should the goal to be contentment, happiness, or something else? Who is even setting the goal of being extraordinary anyway? Why would it make your (or my) life a good life?

</comment><comment><USER67> > But real extraordinary is nothing like this. Yes, it's exciting, but it also > comes with sacrifices, limitations, and constraints.

Being extraordinary is a public label, and with that comes a target on your back.

If your measures of success are internal you can be happy with your achievements as well as maintain some privacy.

</comment><comment><USER68> I used to struggle with this. It seemed like the first few steps of anything I could do would never measure up to these accomplishments that I saw from others.

Then I realized that even being willing to take those steps is extraordinary -- because it's not that common. Being willing to try and fail is extraordinary. Doing hard work without a guaranteed outcome is extraordinary. Realizing that you've been doing something ineffective and you need to change is extraordinary.

And if you consistently do at least some of those, then one day you may hit those extraordinary results when you least expect it. Even if you don't, you have had extraordinary experiences along the way. That's worth something.

</comment><comment><USER69> A fixation on being extraordinary tends to indicate too much self absorption and a lack of perspective. It seems like another antidote is focusing more on the impact you want to have on the world and those around you, even if no one ever knew about it.

</comment><comment><USER70> Just reminds me that it's perf deadline day @ Google. You know, the company with all the supposedly most extraordinary people.

Worst day (well, days) of the year. Even worse this year with the weird situation we're all in.

</comment><comment><USER71> There are over 7 billion people on Earth. You aren't extraordinary, so you're going to have to get used to it. If you think you are you're probably either in a small pond or not paying attention.

</comment><comment><USER72> I am grateful that exceptionally capable people exist in the world. I find them incredibly motivating because their successes keep elevating the lower bound of collective human potential and set a known standard for what's possible. I find that ignoring the bar for success (at whatever level one strives for) sets you up psychologically to justify mediocre efforts, when in fact most humans have incredible potential. I find that envy is a separate issue that can be managed by thinking carefully about choosing the right role models.

</comment><comment><USER73> There has to be a change in culture, where a sense of duty, persistance, consistency and reliability should be encouraged and taught, over being 'clever' or 'genius'.

Anyone can develop the former qualities, bit the latter qualities are more difficult and rare, in the sense that the amount of work required to reach a genius level in any field is tremendous.

Perhaps its the fault of todays startup culture, where everyone is expected to have a breakthrough workaholic temperment.

</comment><comment><USER74> A great article. There is a German-derived word to describe a so called extraordinary person: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch)

Also worth reading: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory)

</comment><comment><USER75> I look at this in terms of the sport of distance running. I was a fairly accomplished runner, but I could only see who was a better runner - not those who were not. It's a matter of perspective. The top tier marathoners all faced faster runners in front of them - all of them, at some point. So I guess my point is that what constitutes extraordinary is often subjective.

</comment><comment><USER76> By the principle of Pyrrhonism, it's better to do as little as possible rather than try to accomplish a lot. Your brain could be damaged / controlled in a way that prevents you both from seeing the damage / control as well as other errors in your thinking. In a world with unbounded uncertainty on your own thoughts, it's best to do next to nothing.

</comment><comment><USER77> Being mediocre is a perfectly healthy aspiration.

</comment><comment><USER78> The two heuristics I use for this difficulty: 1) Recognizing "Comparison is the thief of happiness" 2) Recognizing that the internet burnishes these peoples' successes and hides their difficulties and shortcomings and suffering.

I don't see the full picture, and looking at the picture wouldn't make me happier anyway.

</comment><comment><USER79> I'd like to mention the book "Missing Out: In Praise of the Unlived Life" by Adam Phillips which carries a similar sentiment. It might be worth checking out if anyone regularly feels anxiety or frustration about where they are in life when they could just as easily feel satisfaction instead.

</comment><comment><USER80> This is hilarious. One article about not being extraordinary, and most commenters explaining exactly how extraordinary they are. Being extraordinary seems to be the most ordinary thing after all.

</comment><comment><USER81> Mark Manson actually wrote a great article on this: In defense of being average => [https://markmanson.net/being- average](https://markmanson.net/being-average)

</comment><comment><USER82> Something I've struggled with for a long time is finding the point of trying when people better than you have failed. The only answer I could come up with is because "you aren't them." Going for my PhD in AI, going to give it my all, and see what I can do.

</comment><comment><USER83> Feels like the author is catching on to the realisations outlined here:

[https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies- are-...](https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-are- unhappy.html)

</comment><comment><USER84> Most people are not extraordinary, by definition. I have never detected any cultural message which states that everyone ought to be extraordinary in order to be worthwhile. The opposite seems to be valourised, in this cultural moment, in my observation.

</comment><comment><USER85> One of my favourite books is "small giants, companies that chose to be great instead of Big".

I wish more companies were ok with just being really good at what they do and focused on that instead of how to get the big pay day and the fuck you money.

</comment><comment><USER86> I think there's something to be said for being a specialized generalist.

Being a true jack of all trades can mean you're mediocre at everything, it's better IMO to specialize on certain skills within different fields - <USER3> ones that synergize.

</comment><comment><USER31> I fully relate to this, but the worst part is being judged as being defective and unsophisticated by the extraordinary people that I surround myself with. It feels like I've already failed at life most days.

</comment><comment><USER87> Very refreshing and inspiring. Reminds me of that well known quote: "done is better than perfect". It could be rephrased as "good is better than extraordinary" to summarize that post.

</comment><comment><USER88> >No one starts off as extraordinary

Huh? I challenge you to remove from that list of overachievers all the people who had rich, smart, supportive parents. I think you will find it considerably shrunken.

</comment><comment><USER89> ability = hours * talent^2 where average talent is 1

Having an ego is just wasted energy, try to be happy with what you can achieve because you cannot control talent, just hours.

</comment><comment><USER90> "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid" \--Einstein

</comment><comment><USER91> Well, this article is certainly lovely, but does no one else think that this has been written by GPT-3? Did just I become a hopeless sceptic?

</comment><comment><USER92> This is also the motto of Golang, which is also the reasons it is one of the most practical programming language out there for getting stuff done.

</comment><comment><USER93> just imagine something you want to happen or exist, then make it happen or make it exist. ordinariness is irrelevant.

Having a goal that's only "being better than someone else" is silly unless you are in a formally competitive situation. Doesn't make much sense as a life goal.

Chose a concrete goal that doesn't shift arbitrarily on what other people have done.

</comment><comment><USER94> "There is a real magic in enthusiasm. It spells the difference between mediocrity and accomplishment."

\- Norman Vincent Peale

</comment><comment><USER95> I like to think of myself having an extraordinary mix of mediocre talents and profound shortcomings...

</comment><comment><USER77> It's ok to aspire to mediocrity

<comment><USER96> I'm not 100% sure you're being literal but I agree with this statement when taken at face value.

Being "extraordinary" often means you're just making somebody else richer. There are some objectively extraordinary folks working at e.g. Facebook, but what does that really gain them? What has that given the world? It's a mixed bag, to put it mildly.

Probably the only real reason to strive for being "extraordinary" at your career so that you can stop working for other people, or if the craft itself brings you more joy than anything else in life.

<comment><USER77> I think it's unfair that "mediocre" is seen as a bad word. We have so many things to do, I think it's perfectly good to be mediocre in many ways. We're competing on a global scale, it's impossible to be exceptional on many dimensions.

I'd like to encourage more people to be happy being mediocre.

<comment><USER96> It's also true that even a "mediocre" engineer is elite in many ways - <USER4> are "mediocre" compared to all the other folks who managed to carve out a sustained engineering career. However, even somebody in the middle of that group has elite engineering skill relative to the population at large.

This is true of many careers, of course!

I always feel bad for the professional athletes who "suck." It's kind of hilarious -- even the "worst" professional athlete in a given professional sports league is actually an extremely elite specimen, with only a tiny fraction of all athletes even being able to make it into such a league.

<comment><USER77> When i first joined my cycling club, i was dead last every ride. Even then i used to say "i'm faster than all the blokes who were too lazy to get out of bed". Slowly i got a bit better. Reminding my self of that was a great motivator.

<comment><USER96> Hah! I do the same with tennis. I'm not very good, but you know... I can do some decent things out there sometimes, and I'm proud I took up the game in my 40s after so many of my peers have totally given up on such things.

I'm also blind in one eye. Probably not a lot of people out there playing tennis with just one good eye. Perhaps I actually am "elite" in terms of half- blind, middle-aged, overweight, novice tennis players.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> 10y ago, I posted some similar thoughts about how reading HN risks demotivation via a memetic mechanism similar to the 'negative allelopathy' in biological systems: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1537692](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1537692)

Reproduced here, as it's just as relevant, or moreso, today:

 _I fear that what you 're feeling is a dark side of the net's otherwise positive aspects. (It's not just HN.)

The net lets us see all the great output from the most talented writers, thinkers, doers of their fields -- including people who we could imagine to be our peer group. But what we see is not an accurate sample -- it's dominated by the most remarkable, outliers by both skill and luck. (That is, there's massive survivorship bias; see Taleb's Fooled by Randomness.) Still, if we choose to look, it's in our face every hour of every day, in our news feeds, our Twitter streams, our Facebook statuses.

(Compare also: the quality of social networks whereby for almost everyone, your friends will have more friends than you [1]; the Matthew Effect, whereby small changes in initial endowment of power/fame/success can compound [2]; and how viewing top athletes can actually decrease someone's coordination in following challenges [3].)

In the plant and insect world, sometimes as one organism thrives, it sends off chemical signals that suppress the growth of its siblings/peers/neighbors, in an effect called allelopathy.

Information about others' great works and successes, transmitted by the net, may sometimes serve as a sort of memetic negative allelopathy. The message is: this territory is taken; you can't reach the sunshine here; try another place/strategy (or even just wither so your distant relatives can thrive). This can be be the subtext even if that's not the conscious intent of those relaying the information. Indeed, the reports may be intended as motivational, and sometimes be, while at other times being discouraging.

What to do? Not yet certain, but awareness that this mechanism is in play may help. You can recognize that what you're reading is not representative, and that comparing yourself against prominent outliers -- or even worse, vague composites of outliers who are each the best in one dimension -- is unrealistic and mentally unhealthy.

Actual progress for yourself may require detaching from the firehose a bit, picking a narrower focus. (HN's eclectic topic matter can be inherently defocusing.)

And remind yourself that despite various reptilian-hindbrain impulses, most interesting creative activity today is far from zero-sum. The outliers can win, and you can win too (even if you don't achieve outlier-sized success). Their success can expand your options, and they may wind up being your collaborators (formally or informally by simply participating in a mutual superstructure) moreso than your 'competitors'.

[1] [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific- funda...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific- fundamentalist/200911/why-your-friends-have-more-friends-you-do)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect)

[3] Can't find the reference at the moment, but the study I recall showed people video of a top soccer player, and subsequently they performed worse on tasks requiring physical coordination._

<comment><USER33> The Matthew Effect is equal parts frustrating and fascinating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER98> I'm extraordinarily good at procrastinating!

</comment><comment><USER99> Buy can you be extraordinary with not being OK?

</comment><comment><USER100> I read the title as "Boeing ok with not being extraordinary". That would be a pretty dramatic statement...

</comment><comment><USER101> Great post. :) Thanks

</comment><comment><USER102> or "overcoming narcissism" ?

</comment><comment><USER103> It comes from within, my dear princess.

</comment><comment><USER104> nah

</comment><comment><USER105> [https://archive.is/oOMFR](https://archive.is/oOMFR)

[https://web.archive.org/web/20200824155533/https://www.tiffa...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200824155533/https://www.tiffanymatthe.com/not- extraordinary/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for posting this! My website is currently down and I'm in the process of fixing it.

<comment><USER106> How are you hosting this?

<comment><AUTHOR> HostPapa. I contacted them and they said it was a problem with their server, so I can't do anything about it sadly.

<comment><USER106> Yeah, imho, make something that generates static pages and then you have any host of options with (nearly) infinite scale -- s3/cloudfront, etc. And it's still pretty simple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> We all are extraordinary actually. Human race is in a continuous evolution, so absolutely any of us is an extraordinary person compared with 2000 years ago great minds. A high-school student is better educated then Pythagoras for example.

Conversely, even the greatest minds of today (Hawking, Einstein, etc) will be below high-school kids of the future.

<comment><USER108> This is a dangerous point of view to take.

"evolution" means "adaptation". It does _not_ mean "progress".

A doctor of the 18th century would bleed their patients to balance humours, but would, at least, not shove an icepick into their frontal lobe as a form of exorcism. A doctor of the early 20th century wouldn't do the former, but might well do the latter.

Which is not to say that progress doesn't exist, only that it's a fraught concept, with many caveats, regressions, and no firm ground to judge its status at any given point. You will have a more productive engagement with history, and with the ancients, if you consider them as your equals, just situated differently in time and place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER109> Yes.... Yes..... Consume, work, run in your hamster wheel. Mediocrity is okay, it's what your overlords desire. Enough to be useful, not enough to affect change.

<comment><USER110> I think you are conflating being extraordinary with excellence -- the opposite of extraordinary is not mediocrity. We can all achieve excellence -- by definition being extraordinary is rare.

<comment><USER111> Except extraordinary is correlated with excellent because this premise:

> We can all achieve excellence

is false in practice.

<comment><USER112> "can" I think is true for some large majority of people. It's just that most people get discouraged well before the point at which they've devoted enough of their lives to their endeavor to be truly excellent. So in that sense, maybe they "can't", but it is not due to an innate talent deficit, but a psychological deficit (which I believe can also usually be addressed with enough attention and intention).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Finland Is a Capitalist Paradise - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/opinion/sunday/finland-socialism-capitalism.html <comment><USER2> Yes taxes are good for companies, not all companies however. Boeing and Lockheed Martin comes to mind when thinking of companies more or less funded by tax payers. Also it's really convenient for big companies to be able to "order" educated engineers letting the tax payers handle the risk of failure. Which is why universities teach java since the government have negotiated with the industry to fill their needs. This is something that the Germans have developed for example and explains how the car manufacturers get their employees. Startups small and agile however maybe don't have a need for java developers or whatever last generation tech stack as they have no technical debt nor would they be invited to these meetings as everything is planned 5 years ahead at least among other reasons. Still they have to pay the bill for an army of java programmers even though node.js might be the tool suitable for their needs and might as well be better of learning motivated high school dropouts said technology.

<comment><USER3> IT is (one of) the odd one outs here, though. Most job profiles do not change that significantly over the course of 5 years.

Nurses still do mostly the same things as 5 years ago. As do teachers, policemen, construction workers, waiters, etc. etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Two of these comments include a statement to the effect that Finland is boring. The population of the US is 327 million people; in Finland it's 5.5. If Finland offers more than 1/60th the entertainment possibilities of the US, then per person it is more entertaining.

</comment><comment><USER5> Finland is no paradise nor is the US of A. No country is. There are some cons and pros to every country. Finland is a sleepy country where nothing much happens. Yes you have a universal healthcare but so is this healthcare expensive compared to some other "capitalist heavens" like Singapore or South Korea.

Also there is no "cheap" in Nordic countries. Everything has a certain minimum level of quality set for everyone which makes things needlessly more expensive.

If you crave cheap junk food you are out of luck. Eating or drinking out is so expensive that people just stay at home and cook. That does not sound like freedom but a society engineered by the elite to do what they think is the best for that society.

<comment><USER6> Yet, even in the Nordic countries you have McDonalds and BurgerKing, the sheer definitions of cheap junk food.

<comment><USER7> You're conflating "cheap" as price with value ((quality & quantity)/price). Junk is still too expensive if costs too much. Jack in the Box is terrible food but the location just south of the Googleplex on Shoreline has outrageously high prices ($20-25 average with tax for a male late teenager or large adult male). That's low value crap. If it were monetarily-cheap, in addition to nutritionally-cheap, then it might make sense every now and then.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: First Bitcoin Wallet app for Windows 8 - <AUTHOR> http://apps.microsoft.com/windows/en-US/app/7570b069-4195-4267-b2aa-f667d4cd8948

<comment><USER2> Just wondering, but is the source code available? Otherwise it would be foolish to use it to store coins.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I will probably open source it soon. But couldn't one just open source the code, say that's the code the app is using, and then change the code the app is using to do something malicious? As long as I don't check in the new code, no one would be the wiser.

Not that I'm planning to do that, but is there a solution to this issue?

<comment><USER3> Which is why some people prefer building from source. Not sure how that'd work out in the Metro environment though.

<comment><AUTHOR> You could build my source and deploy to your system yourself and it would work, but this doesn't seem like a very "for the masses" solution. Plenty of people out there who want the security of using open source code that others have reviewed, but don't know anything about development to be able to build that code themselves.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Italy to close all stores apart from food shops and pharmacies - <AUTHOR> https://www.thelocal.it/20200311/breaking-italy-to-close-all-stores-apart-from-food-shops-and-pharmacies <comment> chupa-chups I hope everyone does her/his best to tell their peers this is real.

</comment><comment><USER2> The faster your community does the same, the more people will live.

<comment><USER3> Not sure why this is getting downvoted. We're all on approximately the same exponential trend as Italy, just a few days behind. The US, for example, is looking to be 11 days behind. Do nothing and we'll end up where they are now.

[https://twitter.com/EcolEpig/status/1237430984678703104](https://twitter.com/EcolEpig/status/1237430984678703104)

<comment><USER4> Exactly. It is already clear that it will not go away by itself. The more drastic measures, the sooner, the faster it can be managed.

I live in Poland. It seems most cases are connected with somebody who recently came from abroad. Closing borders may seem like a drastic measure but much less drastic that waiting couple of days and doing it anyway + much more.

My point of view is it is a bit foolish to slowly, gradually escalate measures. It would be probably wise cause of action with a completely new disease which we don't know yet, but it is not a new disease now. We saw what happened to China. We know it is difficult to control and if people are allowed to move it is neigh impossible to prevent from spreading.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Related Italy thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22545430](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22545430)

</comment><comment><USER6> Actually:

food deliveries will still be permitted

all cafes/restaurants will be closed unless can guarantee at least 1 metre distance between customers

public services like post, transport remain

<comment><USER7> Nope, cafes/restaurant will be close, period.

<comment><USER6> Do you have a source? I pasted from the original article.

<comment><USER8> [https://www.repubblica.it/politica/2020/03/11/news/coronavir...](https://www.repubblica.it/politica/2020/03/11/news/coronavirus_conte_italia_governo_misure-250988471/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Woah, thats crazy.. Its sad that a lot of states will look like that because they wont do anything...

<comment><USER10> Won't do what?

<comment><USER9> Exactly. Nothing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's funny how the only global crisis deemed worth shutting down society over is the one that impacts 65+ year olds. Global warming, pension underfunding, unsustainable healthcare, and education costs don't count, because the crisis is 15 years away (eg after they die).

Crippling the global economy (and shutting down schools!!!) to stop COVID-19 hurts the future of 15-35 year olds the worst. But any reform is STILL going to be spent increasing healthcare funding -- to benefit the retirees impacted by COVID. $0 fixing the the damage to Gen Z, whose education and job prospects were delayed by (potentially) years, depending on whether we get sent into a recession.

<comment><USER12> > $0 fixing the the damage to Gen Z, whose education and job prospects were > delayed by (potentially) years, depending on whether we get sent into a > recession.

I mean Gen Z and younger millenials are in for the biggest and easiest opportunity to get rich in our lifetimes. A combination of low interest rates, and then high market supply when a lot of old people die leaving their houses vacant, means a reduction in prices and cheap financing, as well as undervalued equities. Perfect time to get rich.

<comment><USER13> =/ As a COBOL dev I have a great time incoming. Hoooraaaayyyy...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We changed the URL from [https://www.forexlive.com/news/!/coronavirus-italy- has-order...](https://www.forexlive.com/news/!/coronavirus-italy-has-ordered- all-shops-to-close-except-pharmacies-and-groceries-20200311) to one that seems to have more information.</comment>