A lot of "idiotic" things have reasonable explanations (2011) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/if-everyone-else-is-such-an-idiot-how-come-youre-not-rich/249430/ <comment><USER2> A similar story that I love regarding the infamous Van Halen brown M&M contract rider:

"Van Halen was the first band to take huge productions into tertiary, third- level markets. We'd pull up with nine eighteen-wheeler trucks, full of gear, where the standard was three trucks, max. And there were many, many technical errors — whether it was the girders couldn't support the weight, or the flooring would sink in, or the doors weren't big enough to move the gear through.

The contract rider read like a version of the Chinese Yellow Pages because there was so much equipment, and so many human beings to make it function. So just as a little test, in the technical aspect of the rider, it would say "Article 148: There will be fifteen amperage voltage sockets at twenty-foot spaces, evenly, providing nineteen amperes …" This kind of thing. And article number 126, in the middle of nowhere, was: "There will be no brown M&M's in the backstage area, upon pain of forfeiture of the show, with full compensation."

So, when I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown M&M in that bowl … well, line-check the entire production. Guaranteed you're going to arrive at a technical error. They didn't read the contract. Guaranteed you'd run into a problem. Sometimes it would threaten to just destroy the whole show. Something like, literally, life-threatening."

[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brown-out/](https://www.snopes.com/fact- check/brown-out/)

<comment><USER3> > So, when I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown M&M in that bowl … ...They > didn't read the contract.

I don't know that that necessarily follows. It could be that they read it, said "fuck that", and did everything else to spec. Good story tho.

<comment><USER4> > It could be that they read it, said "fuck that", and did ...

Exactly. You wonder what else they said "fuck that" to because _they_ don't care or think it's not necessary.

An even better case to catch.

<comment><USER5> Yeah. I'm imagining the guy who says "fuck that" to picking the brown m&ms out as the same kind of person who goes "10A circuits should be fine. They build safety margins into those" or "those rafters should be fine to hold 2 tons of equipment. They're really stout 2x6's." You know, the kind of person who just assumes they know better and that what is planned doesn't matter. And if you let them do that they will totally kill you with their negligence.

<comment><USER3> > "fuck that" to picking the brown m&ms out as the same kind of person who > goes "10A circuits should be fine. They build safety margins into those"

You've never worked with an electrician. This is not how these things work.

I love that this story gives people the warm fuzzies; enough to downvote. =D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article puts it better than I ever could. I had a similar reaction when I read extremely critical press coverage of some VCs in Europe investing in YPlan, which eventually sold for a nominal amount to Time Out London.

The synopsis of all the coverage was: "How could they have spent all that money? And how could the investors have been so STUPID?"

My friend Fred Destin wrote a great essay on this[1], and I'll do the horrid thing of quoting my own note to him in reply:

> It's analogous to a soccer fan questioning the manager's decision to put > player X on the field instead of Y. The manager sees both players on the > training ground for hours every day, knows their mood, talks to them, > understands how they respond to different situations, and consults his > coaches. Then the matchgoing fan sees 90 minutes of output on Saturday and > makes a judgement with <1% of the data a manager has.

> Past a certain point in fundraising and traction, it's impossible to believe > that a startup failing is anything more interesting than a combination of > poorer-than-expected execution, and bets not paying off.

[1] [https://medium.com/tech-london/hey-yplan-how-do-you-dare- go-...](https://medium.com/tech-london/hey-yplan-how-do-you-dare-go- bust-177bc67efdbb)

<comment><USER7> Scale this up to anything and you will want to be governed by a benevolent dictator. Not even senators themselves read the full bills they vote on, and I don't blame them with it being hundreds of pages of reading that could easily be parted out to aides, but the electorate certainly doesn't have this advantage. Maybe 1% of voters are truly informed.

<comment> blaser-waffle My IT director doesn't know every facet of what is in our environment, and generally is not up to date as to what changes are happening on the day to day. _And he doesn 't need to be._

The point of high-level workers is so they can focus on high-level priorities. They have staff -- legal aids, system admins, business analysts, whatever -- whose job it is to digest that stuff and put it into simple briefings for leadership to evaluate in the context of other issues.

> I don't blame them with it being hundreds of pages of reading that could > easily be parted out to aides, but the electorate certainly doesn't have > this advantage

The electorate isn't expected to have this advantage, and is not expected to read the bills. The whole reason for representative democracy is so that the common voter does not have to parse this stuff -- that's explicitly the point. I find someone who reflects my views and I put them in office, and trust that they'll be able to digest what's happening and vote accordingly. The common man isn't expected to understand tariffs, international banking, military theory, computer engineering, social justice issues, and food scarcity.

<comment><USER8> A lot to unpack here.

> The common man isn't expected to understand tariffs, international banking, > military theory, computer engineering, social justice issues, and food > scarcity.

What better use is there of the common man's time than understanding societal issues like justice and scarcity? Are you describing how the world is or claiming how it should be? If you do not understand justice, scarcity, etc. how can you claim to elect someone who reflects your views--ignoring that a lot of politics is lesser evil voting?

An uneducated populace voting is a worst-case scenario for a representative democracy.

<comment><USER3> > > The common man isn't expected to understand tariffs, international > banking, military theory, computer engineering, social justice issues, and > food scarcity.

> What better use is there of the common man's time than understanding > societal issues like justice and scarcity?

Both of those can be true.

<comment><USER8> Hence my question of whether the OP is prescriptive or descriptive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> People call people idiots instead of trying to understand how they made a mistake because of fundamental attribution error. We all do it.

People are predominantly successful because of luck. Opportunity, connections, upbringing, all luck. Yes, you still need to make the right decision at the right time.

There is a pernicious tendency to make a fallacious argument for intelligence because of success; that is, people become convinced of intelligence because of success. The most obvious example today is the president of the USA. He is convinced of his own intelligence because clearly he is one of the most successful people in the country. I don't think many reasonable people would argue for his genius. On the other end of the spectrum, it seems obvious to me that in the billions of poor people on this planet there is an unknown genius unable to escape his or her circumstances.

We make mistakes. We don't try to understand the mistakes of others as we call them idiots. We are not necessarily capable of succeeding even if we are smarter than those that have.

<comment><USER10> Thank you! Even if your comment is slightly off-topic I always get upset when people just immediately assume genius because of success. Some people almost literally didn't have to do anything but to open their wallet to receive dollars in, at the right time, while being at the right place.

This very often gets overlooked. The world's economy is an MMORPG game and networking / contacts matter much more than many of us who swear in meritocracy would like to believe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Another form of this that seems to have taken over online discussions in the last few years is "<person> did <thing> because they are evil" (or rich).

As an example, I've noticed that privacy-related discussion on HN is often thought-terminated by comments that reduce down to "<company> is doing <perceived privacy-destroying thing> because they want to destroy your privacy". On reddit, a common form of this is "<politician> is doing <something implausibly comic book villain-y> because they are evil".

When the motive isn't clear, I often enter these discussions trying to learn more about _why_ \- but more often than not, I just leave feeling the same way as the author here.

</comment><comment><USER12> They picked an example that really aged well. Look at netflix today - it's clear that a little bit of humility would have been warranted in 2011 when talking about the company.

</comment><comment><USER13> Communication is a key to a high-level position in a hierarchy, and therefore, to the wealth. But very high IQ people have difficulty connecting with the majority of other people, so they lag behind.

</comment><comment><USER14> A interesting take on this phenomenon from the point of view of the insider and outsider - [https://commoncog.com/blog/good-synthesis-adapting-to- uncert...](https://commoncog.com/blog/good-synthesis-adapting-to-uncertainty)

</comment><comment><USER15> I feel like what isn't really properly understood in these situations is the statistical chances that are involved here. 10 people put $50 on the roulette table, and then we celebrate the guy who hit their number. That genius who hit their number still had a negative expected value when placing that bet. Colette Martin would've been right to criticize Reed Hastings if he were making that bet with Netflix's money. But we don't read articles about the CEOs who make bad bets and lose them, and we don't really know if the CEOs who won made good bets or bad bets.

It's possible the richest CEOs are actually the worst at picking bets, because they're the ones who picked bets that were the least likely to pay off, and therefore got the biggest pay out when they won. If 50 people were making the same bet as Reed Hastings, then Netflix would've found it _far_ harder to succeed, since they would've been competing for talent, content and customers with 50 other companies. The reason Netflix exploded in growth is partly because they were the only ones serving that market. Maybe that was a genius stroke of insight, or maybe he was one of a thousand people making bad bets, and he's the one that it paid off for.

<comment><USER16> > we don't read articles about the CEOs who make bad bets and lose them

Yes we do, all the time: Theranos, WeWork, WebVan, Myspace, Friendster, BlackBerry, Enron, Worldcom, etc, etc, etc.

Sure, we don't hear about companies that never get anywhere because they never did anything interesting to start with, because that's unremarkable.

But we hear a lot about the companies that attracted a lot of success or hype early but then "bet" wrong. (In fact, these stories arguably get a disproportionate amount of coverage, due to schadenfreude from journalists and their audience.)

The roulette spin analogy is not apt, because building a successful company is not a single bet; it's many many bets, every year/month/day over many years, which moves it well out of the realm of random chance and mostly into the realm of skill.

And before someone says it: nobody argues good luck is not a factor in a company's success. But that is mostly at the very beginning (e.g., Steve Jobs meeting Woz; Bill Gates' mother knowing the chairman of IBM) and luck alone is not nearly enough.

Skilled leadership over the long term makes all the difference between success and wasted opportunity.

<comment><USER17> It's interesting that plenty of people were flinging poo at Reed Hastings when he was making the transition between mailing DVDs and streaming, and pretty much nobody in the media dared fling poo at the obvious "violating laws of physics" shennanegins happening at Theranos before Tyler Shultz took them to the ground.

None of the other examples are really comparable to Netflix either; they were all companies which eventually failed, but which business reporters didn't particularly dislike until after they failed. Netflix was nearly universally reviled for making "dumb" decisions which turned out to be correct, and Mcardle deserves credit for noticing that Hastings was probably a better CEO than most business reporters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > "If everyone else is such an idiot, how come I'm not rich?"

Unfortunately the answer to that question is, I spend way too much time on hacker news.

</comment><comment><USER19> While I agree with the main thrust of the article (Chesterton's fence, etc.), the author seems to take as a given the fact that Netflix is sliding back into becoming as expensive as cable, because the content providers are setting the prices.

But Netflix's value is not from competing against cable on price, it's competing against _piracy_ on _convenience_.

Content providers will never again see the same profits, because the de-facto price of content is zero. It's too easy to pirate, and morally grey enough that people are willing to do it.

Netflix got so big because it captured the market of people who were willing to pay for the convenience. If this gets too high they will just go back to pirating.

<comment><USER20> I'm not sure if that's a given. People going back to piracy sort of assumes people will happily walk back to watching sketchy streams on laptop screens. I think the bar will pretty high for people who wish to watch on Apple Devices, Rokus or Smart TVs.

There has been enough time for people to get locked into walled gardens.

<comment><USER7> Piracy in 2020 is more polished than first party streaming platforms.

<comment><USER20> I think content acquisition still has several hurdles as well as the pipelines of your favorite metadata scraper isn't exactly trivial to setup.

The actual software, once installed is really nice (I have a Plex Server + Infuse on an Apple TV), but in my case I still pay for content (via usenet).

<comment><USER7> There is software that has already done this for you, no need to configure anything, just open the app, search the title, and start watching.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What's ironic to me is (IMO) Netflix is probably the shrewdest big company in existence now. Hastings has dominated not one but two markets, the second obviously larger and more insurmountable than the first. Almost Every single decision they make (including and especially ones that make customers unhappy, like their shitty browsing experience) seems so calculated and thoughtful it's just amazing.

Even I thought Disney plus might be the beginning of the end for Netflix, that it finally met a Goliath it couldn't best, but now even that isnt obvious anymore.

<comment><USER14> Meh, Netflix is one of many for me. Would be happy if it didn't exist, to watch other stuff on other streaming and I don't think they necessarily have the best content.

Netflix try's to get you hooked on their originals, but the problem with that is once you binged a series you want something else - they cant keep feeding you the crack that is that current series because they take months to produce, so you switch to something else - and at that point it could be something else on Netflix, or just as easily something else somewhere else. I don't think Netflix is really that sticky.

But maybe I am proving the point of the article and I'm missing the strategy.

<comment><USER21> Exactly. We all keep talking about leaving Netflix but it looks like we aren't. How long has Netflix now been without major movies? Clearly whatever they're doing works - from my ground-level experience, everyone has at least a couple of shows that they like watching in Netflix, and everyone shares accounts as well so in the end it's a few dollars a month for always having a backup service with a lot of "meh" titles at the least.

Perhaps that's what the company is gunning for? Perhaps they noticed that the crowd that sees Adam Sandler movies is the main market and they don't necessarily need to pander to "sophisticated" audience to be a successful company? Who knows. It just looks mindful, minimally, where they're trying to chart out a path that they CAN do, given all their constraints (mainly every major IP now being protected by their parent for their own streaming service).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's an intelligence to realize that in order to make a lot of money, you have to be ruthless at business. In order to be ruthless like that, you need to neglect being a good and reasonable person, even to those closest to you. Such is the cost of money. Money doesn't buy real friends or happiness, and so the smartest among us are deliberate in not accumulating wealth needlessly. Whilst everyone else assumes their stupidity for not accumulating wealth, in truth, it's a Dunning-Kruger situation.

</comment><comment><USER23> I've encountered a few individuals fairly well off and where they think of everyone as idiots. These individuals came from an upbringing of lower class and they eventually had the right opportunities happen for getting ahold of some money. Example from something comparable to bitcoin happening. Nothing in anyway of were these persons were contributing to society in how they gathered a good portion of wealth.

I've also encountered people from wealthy families and these individuals typically don't comment on what they think of others less fortunate in society. They also stay out of politics or anything where people get disgruntled about. I'm unsure if it was how they were raised and or they know the game of life is rigged. In any case, I respect this group the most which is sort of odd because everything was handed to them.

Anyway, the first group of individuals probably would have been better persons if they were just born into money as well. They have a fallacy in their head of they earned their success and wouldn't have had it any other way in life. In reality they just had a worse path to eventually becoming financially independent and sadly these individuals place their ego around wealth because of it.

I don't necessarily believe in the traditional idea of luck. I think everything is predetermined at birth. But wow does it help to be born into a wealthy family with somewhat decent genetics. Quality of life will be so much better. It's so noticeable that I sometimes wonder how others don't see it as well.

</comment><comment><USER24> I've been learning this slowly over the last few years. I was a typical science guy. Then a close friend dragged me to the gym (which was just foreat heads right?). And it really helped with my depression and now it's a major activity for me. Same for Networking and Sales skills and Watching Sports and Foreign languages...

Embarrassed me would like to publically apologies for assuming everyone else is an idiot and should do what I do. Sorry guys!

</comment><comment><USER25> >> I mean, Reed Hastings did manage to build this rather large and successful business that killed off one of the most successful retail operations of its day. It's possible that he just sort of did this by accident. But is this really the most likely explanation?

It's possible, yes. And if we consider that there were possibly a few thousand people at that time trying to make that business work, then "by accident" does start to look like the best explanation.

Was/is he smarter than everyone else trying to do the same thing? Probably not.

Was/is he better connected, better funded, more able to run a business, than the others? Possibly, but probably not.

Was/is he luckier than everyone else? Almost by definition, if we define "luck" as "something that helps people succeed".

It's a very nebulous definition. But there's definitely a Venn diagram overlap of "by accident" and "by being very lucky". Even without getting to FedEx levels of "lucky", there is definite "luck" involved in making decisions based on incomplete information that will turn out to have outsize effects on the business later. This is a normal activity for startup founders, and I'll bet serious money that more than a few of them were made in Netflix' early years.

We always underestimate survivor bias when considering successful startup stories. And without studying the other people who were trying to build the same business at the same time, we have no idea why some of them succeeded and others failed. Without this information, it's impossible to say whether Netflix succeeded "by accident" or by design.

</comment><comment><USER26> I had a manager early in my career who used to say "everyone else's job is harder than you think." That really stuck with me.

</comment><comment> V-2 A non-native speaker here - what does "debacletacular" mean? The word only has a few hits on Google. I understand it's a neologism of sorts, a conflation, but what's the meaning?

I'm guessing "a spectacular debacle" \- AKA "epic fail"?

<comment><USER27> it's a port-manteau of spectacular and debacle i.e. a spectacular debacle

<comment> V-2 Port-manteau, another one :) Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Oh, this is easy.

The usual response to such a question is - "you're just an anti-intellectual! Being rich doesn't mean you're smart - any fool can do it! Real non-fools write their opinions down and other fools follow them."

/s

I've known some utterly immoral people become very, very wealthy - I might've even helped them along the way. The reason I'm not rich and they are, is that they decided they didn't want to help me along my way.

Being rich isn't an indicator of intelligence, nor is it an indicator of hard work or decent ethics. It does, usually, mean that someone wanted to give you money for some reason - and even a fool or an intellectual can do such a thing for love. Or, not.

<comment><USER29> > It does, usually, mean that someone wanted to give you money for some reason

Isn't that the definition of participation in the economy? You created goods, or provided services, or arranged for goods to be created or services provided, and in exchange people give you money?

Cases where people are given money without in some way earning it are far in the minority.

<comment><USER30> > You created goods, or provided services, or arranged for goods to be created > or services provided,

or drank with someone on a regular basis, or married one of their relatives,

<comment><USER29> It's almost like building social connections and establishing trust with other people is important to later being trusted in other contexts!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> So do not attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by you not understanding the whole picture.

<comment><USER32> I have for a long time now extended Hanson's razor with "... and never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by ignorance."

The beauty of it is that it doesn't need to say who is the ignorant one!

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Because you're an idiot too. Also me. We're all just muppets, with blind spots, distorted perspectives and emotions that override reason. Some idiots are just lucky in the right ways at the right times.

Hey, at least it's consistent.

</comment><comment><USER34> I kept thinking this when the 'cybertruck' was unveiled. Suddenly everyone around me was explaining in detail why this truck was going to be a complete fiasco and a danger to everyone else on the road. I'll happily acknowledge that Musk is off his rocker, but can people really think that he doesn't know how to make a car?

( I'll admit a soft spot for the thing after someone pointed out it looks like what happens when you let back end engineers design the front end )

<comment><USER35> I will fully admit that Musk knows how to make a car. He's a car person and had a history of owning and enjoying sporty luxury cars before Tesla. But he's not a truck person.

<comment><USER34> He didn't own any rockets either.

I don't know if the cybertruck is a good or bad idea. I don't know if it's going to succeed or fail. I don't know how anyone can possibly declare with confidence that they do know how the truck will do when released.

<comment><USER35> The whole problem with eg the BMW i-Series or most other electric cars is that they are designed in a silly way that says, "look at me, I'm a weird electric car, I'm not a normal car at all, I'm willing to look like a total dork in order to virtue-signal about being eco-friendly". Teslas just look like sports cars—except the Cybertruck's styling is 100% "dorky virtue signal about having a weird special truck", and truck people are even less likely than car people to put up with that.

I looked to see what truck users on /r/Trucks had to say about it.[1][2] Here are some highlights, both positive and negative:

> It's really damn cool aside from the roof coming to a point. I'm not sure I > understand that design decision. However, onboard air compressor, 110v/220v > accessory power, fast as shit, good ground clearance, integral bed cover and > ramps, air ride suspension, and tough shell to boot... there is a lot to > like here. I might just have to buy one in a couple years.

> Yeah because everyone wants a 'bed' you can't load from the sides.

> I think [being able to load the truck bed from the sides] really only > matters for people who use their trucks for actual work. This is obviously > for people who want a truck for play and not work.

> ... he could have taken this seriously and actually made an impact. Now he's > proven the older anti EV crowd 100% correct that an electric truck isn't a > viable alternative.

> Clearly designed by someone who has literally never even used a truck once > in their entire life.

> It's stupid tall bedsides ruin it for slide in campers too. If it wasn't for > that the 3500lb payload and huge battery would make it great for a slide in.

> I'm surprised you all are not pouncing on the unibody. The other "truck" > (Honda) that uses a unibody construction does not get much love.

> [People who like the Cybertruck design are] those who've never actually used > a truck to haul items and/or trailers. Those who are in the ranching, > mining, and other similar industries are laughing at this.

> Is the bed cover transparent? Seems like the rear window is only usable when > the cover is retracted. I'm sorry. This is a truck for the Ridgeline crowd. > No 8ft bed option. Only crew cab configuration. AWD, not 4WD. Can't tow a > Gooseneck or 5th wheel, which you're gonna want when towing a 14K trailer. > People will buy it. I won't.

> It's a weird case of form over function. He was so focused on the blade > runner vibe he forgot to make sure it was usable as a truck. Can't even get > to the front of the bed without opening the tailgate and getting inside.

> Trucks have a utilitarian purpose. There is a reason for their shapes. And > if you look worldwide there are some differences, but also some > commonalities. Like being able to access the frigging bed. That's a massive > failure here.

> There's some things about truck design that are important to the function of > being a truck. Like not having angled bed sides so you can fucking reach the > first 1/2 of the bed without getting in it or being able to tow a 5th wheel.

> After looking at more pictures today I realized it doesn't even have a true > 6.5' bed. It's much shorter than that, but angles in underneath the rear > seats. Probably ok for hauling a few sheets of plywood, but putting in, say, > furniture, would be harder.

> I set things in the bed over the bedside a lot. And climb in the sides. I'd > have to awkwardly yeet shit over the side of that angled monstrosity

> This truck looks like an absolute nightmare to load and unload tbh. I > actually even ditched my bed for a Bradford flatbed to make my truck easier > to use. Rear/side visibility looks awful. Boasts a 14,000 towing capacity > yet it looks like a nightmare to hook up to a trailer. I'd love to know how > far this thing can tow 14,000lbs. Payload of "3,900lbs". What does the truck > itself weigh? Does Tesla understand GVWR or how to calculate payload or is > it assuming it's potential buyers do not? I guess I just don't understand > the whole concept and what exactly they're going for. Seems like they're > trying to do too much. This has been the plague of these types of > "crossovers" which is exactly what this is. El Camino, Ford Ranchero, Subaru > Brat, Subaru Baja, Chevy Avalanche, Honda Ridgeline, the list goes on and > on.

> Having a large locking cover would give me so much peace of mind when I'm > parked with my tools in there. Having the thing build of stainless steel > made me ask why hasn't trucks been main of stainless steel for years.

> The bed has some L-Tracks and T-Slots in it too for easy tie downs, which > was something I learned from a video I saw that someone did a test drive in

> Literally the only good truck feature is the integrated full width ramp in > the tailgate.

> And you can lower the suspension in the back to make it easier! I would have > killed for that the last few times i was loading heavy equipment into the > back of my truck by myself. I had to make due with backing up to a hill and > using a shitty steel ramp that would fall if i so much as looked at it > wrong.

> Let's be honest, most people in suburbia/cities with trucks are just > drugstore cowboys anyway. This truck will meet the needs of most consumers

> Good luck towing a 5th wheel with that thing

> If you need a truck, Cybertruck's already disqualified itself. Little > clearance, no room for mods, unibody, no side access to the truck bed, > likely range issues (once you add a load), and that's just the stuff we know > about now. I can only imagine buying this if you buy a truck just so you can > feel like you're driving a truck but never plan on using the truck features > beyond occasional off-roading.

[1] [https://old.reddit.com/r/Trucks/comments/dzvqhx/tesla_truck/](https://old.reddit.com/r/Trucks/comments/dzvqhx/tesla_truck/)

[2] [https://old.reddit.com/r/Trucks/comments/e061ru/style_contra...](https://old.reddit.com/r/Trucks/comments/e061ru/style_contrast_tesla_cybertruck_and_ford_f150/)

<comment><USER36> I think that the market for the Cybertruck is the Burning Man/offroad desert campout guy. I'm sure Elon is/knows a lot of these guys, since the Mojave is just over the hills from LA. It's perfect for this application.

It has huge ground clearance, the paint doesn't get screwed up when you scrape it on some brush, the bed is big enough to hold dirtbikes, and they are easy to load/unload with the included ramp.

You can sleep in the bed and it's covered, but not like a normal bed cover that creates a coffin like compartment, or a camper top that doesn't let you load tall items.

Not having access from the sides is a lot less of an issue than it used to be. With a new full sized 4x4, only very tall people can reach much in the bed from the sides anyhow. If you're going to give that up, you might as well go big and provide huge enclosed cargo volume. The ramp makes it much easier to just walk into the bed while carrying heavy items rather than loading from the sides.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> It seems people are commenting on the title of the article and not on what the article says : it's easy to think someone is stupid when you read about them making a bad decision in the news.

Classic examples are:

"Hitler was stupid to invade Russia". In fact he needed to conquer oil fields to keep the ability to wage war andhe Russian army was particularly weak at that point.

"Kodak was stupid not to sell digital camera". In fact Kodak did develop digital camera technology. They were behind one of the first commercial digital camera (The Apple QuickTake), they licensed their patent and were number one sellers of digital camera in the US at some point.

It's easy to fall into this trap when you only high level information. I think that when you get more detailed information this effect dissipates. You then realize that there are many factors and stakeholders.

</comment><comment><USER38> (2011) is important context here.

<comment><USER39> Very. I read the article and was very confused for quite a while until I realized this.

<comment><USER40> Yes, maybe the title can include the date.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> > Any fool can make money these days and most of them do. But what about > people with talent and brains?

Catch-22

[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8578531-it-takes-brains- not...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8578531-it-takes-brains-not-to-make- money-colonel-cargill-wrote)

</comment><comment><USER42> It's really easy to think you have the better answer when you don't even understand the problem. You're working in a weightless fantasy land while the actual people involved have to work with the messy, dirty, heavy reality.

</comment><comment><USER43> Great ideas can still have poor execution. It seems to me that major the flaws in the Netflix execution of the Qwikster spinoff was the source of much of the criticism. Most people lump the idea and execution together.

</comment><comment><USER44> This is why when investors replace founders the companies stop innovating. Obvious ideas don't have any value. You need deep domain knowledge to see how things really are, and not how things seem to be.

</comment><comment><USER45> Dismissing a successful person but seeming "dumb" person is a benefit to them. Now, they can continue succeeding with less scrutiny.

For a long time I thought many politicians were "dumb" based on their public comments, propelled only by their connections. Now, when I look up some politicians who's spouting objectively false / misleading statements and find they've graduated a top-tier university _and_ have a JD I realize these are not intellectually stupid people. They're skilled in their field, have drive, and less empathy/morals than others.

Now, I watch these "dumb" people more closely.

<comment><USER46> US politicians often act "dumb" because Americans mistrust intellectualism and "book smarts," but they trust plain-spoken cowboys who shoot from the hip and speak like common people.

Hillary Clinton attended Wellesley and Yale, and speaks like someone who did, and many Americans hate her. GWB attended Harvard and Yale, but he played up the stereotypical Texas country-boy stereotype and fumbled over his words, and got two terms. Donald Trump went to Wharton business school, but speaks (and shitposts) at the level of a common Reddit troll, and he was elected in large part _because_ of that.

You'd think Americans would stop falling for it at some point.

<comment><USER30> > Hillary Clinton attended Wellesley and Yale, and speaks like someone who > did,

Hillary Clinton put on a terrible fake Arkansas accent for the beginning of her political career, talked about baking pies, and quoted country-western songs in interviews. The reason she uses her natural accent in her later career is because she has positioned herself as a "wonk," and often against Republicans who were doing folksy.

i.e. she's looking for a different set of Americans to "fall for it." Trying to appeal to an audience who thinks that everybody else is a sucker and they're the shrewd one.

When she goes to black churches, she puts it on again. Instantly starts dropping her g's and praising the lord like she would never do in a white church.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I still have and use their disc rental service. I go to dvd.com and it forwards to dvd.netflix.com where I only rent blu-rays. Maybe they would have had better luck with a different name.

</comment><comment><USER48> Risk aversion and capital?

</comment><comment><USER49> Discussed at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3305870](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3305870)

</comment><comment><USER50> If the thesis of this article is that rich successful people can't be stupid then I disagree. Vehemently.

</comment><comment><USER51> Yeah, you idiots all want to be rich! I'm really smart and don't want to be rich, problem solved.

</comment><comment><USER52> Consider `life` been a nonlinear chaotic process, so causality from been smart alone cannot be established.

</comment><comment><USER53> Communication; gifted people can struggle to explain what they're doing to normies

<comment><USER54> In my experience, the ability to explain is a side effect of being gifted. A gifted person can simplify complex subjects and concentrate on the important points, they can find different metaphors that work, or fit their explanation to your knowledge, and are often self aware enough to understand their own thought process. The less gifted often struggle to teach.

However "that's obvious" is also often said intuitively by very smart people, where they are correct but they can't actually explain how they know they are correct.

<comment><USER53> Reconcile that with how power concentrates on charisma and relationships (Politics, Startups, Businessmen). Power is about getting other people to do things, which is about communication!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Most of us chose the profession/vocation we practice because that is the opportunity that presented itself at the time. Very few people set out to be "rich". What they really want is to be comfortable, and able to pursue contentment. An anecdote from when I was a young person. A friend was working very hard to become a plumber. At the time I thought who would want to be a plumber, it is a gross and dirty job with a limited future. One day I asked him out of curiosity what he thought a plumber's place was. His reply surprised me. He said "a plumber's job is to protect the health of the community." Now that I'm older and reflect back, I can see that being a plumber is a solid vocation, that is needed by most communities, where a person can live anywhere they choose. But they don't get "rich". They make a comfortable living and feel they are contributing to the well being of the community. Isn't that what most of us really want from life?

</comment><comment><USER56> What do you call people like me who is an anti-materialist and believes the religious impulse that a vow of poverty will make it easier to achieve enlightenment -- but keeps falling ass backwards into money.

</comment><comment><USER57> A good thing to keep in mind for avoiding pride.

</comment><comment><USER58> Because at the low level, everyone is an idiot.

</comment><comment><USER59> > A lot of "idiotic" things have reasonable explanations

It doesn't, however - often make them less idiotic.

</comment><comment><USER60> 2011 is the context: a height of the start-up wave, ascendance of FB-- presumably due to "genius". The implication being that if you are really smarter than others you must have the rewards to show it. Hopefully this would be received today as a tone-deaf denial of privilege. The great myth of meritocracy has been blown apart.

<comment><USER61> Do you really believe Zuckerberg is an idiot? He has successfully navigated industry shift to mobile. He decisively and swiftly purchased Instagram and WhatsApp, buying his way into two major upcoming trends. You may think he is jerk or evil but no way an idiot.

<comment><USER60> "idiotic" was stated by the original post, not my reply. My objection is to the formulation that massive financial success in tech is proof of genius- level intellect. Being relatively smart may be necessary, but it is certainly not sufficient. Connections, opportunity, timing, and greed are other prerequisites. On the other hand, moral concerns about the negative downstream effects of your goals--something that a supposed genius would have insight into--would be inhibitors. As to the purchases you mentioned, I would argue that the game is a lot easier when you already have hotels on Boardwalk. And I certainly don't attribute strong imperial instincts as a mark of genius.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Wealth = Human Connections.

</comment><comment><USER63> Luck. The answer is luck.

</comment><comment><USER64> While I agree with the article, it is important to distinguish the macro from the micro point of view.

From the micro point of view, a talented individual has a greater a priori probability to reach a high level of success than a moderately gifted one.

On the other hand, from the macro point of view of the entire society, the probability to find moderately gifted individuals at the top levels of success is greater than that of finding there very talented ones, because moderately gifted people are much more numerous and, with the help of luck, have - globally - a statistical advantage to reach a great success, in spite of their lower individual a priori probability.

<comment><USER65> I think it's mostly just that intelligence is not terribly important for success. Tenacity, street smart, charisma, connections, passion are all more important than IQ.

<comment><USER66> Don't forget good looks and a rich uncle to bail you out of a jam.

<comment><USER67> Exactly. People on here seem to forget that almost every single rich person that can be named had hereditary money.

Jeff Bezos now has more money than can be made if an American family earned 63k for 2 million years. He also had parents that gave him a so-called "three hundred thousand dollar investment" (more money than most people see in a lifetime even _while_ working hard for their family, dedicating most of their life to work and barely managing to enjoy life), while ignoring or dodging every single tax he can get away with.

It's weird how most people are fine with that, because they seem to see themselves as temporarily embarrassed billionaires, or because they aren't able to understand the sheer amount of money.

<comment><USER68> > He also had parents that gave him a so-called "three hundred thousand dollar > investment" (more money than most people see in a lifetime even while > working hard for their family, dedicating most of their life to work and > barely managing to enjoy life)

Jeff Bezos also had a teen mother, a biological father that abandoned him, and a Cuban immigrant father that came to the US alone at 16 with nothing and no ability to speak English.

After passing through a refugee camp, just six years later Mike Bezos was raising Jeff as his own and had successfully gone to college.

If - having survived all of that well enough to build a decent life for himself - Mike could afford to invest into his son's business, then it's a remarkable accomplishment that should be cheered, rather than attacked.

<comment><USER69> I don't know much about Jeff Bezos so I try to reserve my judgement about him. But I am confused - how does one come from a poor family and then receive a $300k loan from said family?

<comment><USER70> The poor family through hard work and saving became a moderately wealthy family over time.

<comment><USER69> Sure, I didn't mean to sound like I am stomping on the Dream. What I meant was, how specifically did this family that came from poverty accumulate $300k?

Quick research says that Mike Bezos worked as an engineer for Exxon after graduating college, and saving that money wisely can add up to $300k.

<comment><USER66> That does not change the calculus in my mind, because the situation goes beyond just money. How did the Sr. Bezos land such a well paying job with Exxon? An engineer position puts him in a privileged class. We have to look back further generations to see how his family was in such a position to raise a successful engineer?

Let alone that Sr. should have the knowledge and support he required to manage his money so well. I look at the Jr. Bezos having a privilege to have a father who he could turn to for advise, or who may have guided his development. Not saying he did, cuz I don't know the family, but it sounds like it was a real possibility. Who saves all that money, only to entrust it to his estranged son who he don't know or trust--as if he haven't had a hand in imparting the necessary temperament, sensibility, and wisdom for his son to be successful in some way in the economy? LOL.

How many people today are fortunate to have grown up in this time, in this is a period of unprecedented economic growth and social change, who have squandered their earnings, because they didn't have the support of knowledgeable and trustworthy parents or family?

Sounds to me like a chain of great decisions, luck or both.

I can give a counter example. I moved to an affluent town on the North Shore of Long Island, NY. I met a woman in my neighborhood who described to me her career at the local hospital, as a nurse, for over 20 years. She's African American, and landed this job in the late 70s early 80s by my calculation. She benefited by the social changes at the time that accepted African Americans as nurses in a largely white community. I also met her son, and he struggles with under-employment in his career. I had the impression she didn't understand why he was in that situation. She was proud of her success. I imagine it was difficult for her to reconcile her career in nursing, and her son's struggles. She had success, why not him? Unlucky, more like it.

Right now--that hospital is part of one of those large health care corporate systems. If she had this job today, its very possible she would not have seen her salary increase year after year, nor enjoyed a pension, nor stayed with the same organization for so long just being a nurse. There will always be new nurse graduates with more energy with just enough knowledge who are more manageable by corporate. That's the reality of hospitals and healthcare today, despite growth in this field.

Fortune goes to the right person who is in the right place at the right time. And if you frack up and fall out, someone else is ready to take your place, hey. Who in a great position can say they did it entirely alone? Meag Lottery winners. haha.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Didn't bother to read the article. Just the comments. My take? The smartest people I know are the ones who married well and have a great family and social life. Wealth / education are great but worthless if your personal life is a mess.

Take Benjamin Netanhau as an example. The guy is very wealthy and successful. I think he graduated from both Harvard and MIT. (Although one degree might be an MBA that anyone with money can do). However, he is married to a psycopat who controls his life and is hated by everyone around them. I don't even want to talk about his son. Do I want his life? Hell no!

</comment><comment><USER72> I agree with the premise of this article. That armchair quarterbacking is rarely helpful and usually oversimplified.

But I dislike the common implication in the headline, which is that intelligence somehow always equates to wealth.

First of all, it's not always easy to judge how wealthy another person is, no matter their profession or outward appearance.

Secondly, I think we all need to disuade ourselves of the notion that everyone in the world wants to become wealthy. Plenty of extremely intelligent people are perfectly happy where they are and are perhaps smarter for not chasing wealth like all those genius entrepreneurs. Just look at the lives of those we idolize so much for their success. Do you really want that life? A lot don't. And there is a good chance people more intelligent than those "successful" people don't want that life either.

Additionally, I know quite a few wealthy people that are rather dim. But they were hard workers and an opportunity presented itself because they were at the right place at the right time and they took advantage of that opportunity and worked it dry.

<comment><USER73> Would you agree that higher intelligence equates to a greater likelihood of wealth over the long run (lifetime)?

<comment><USER74> As a general trend, yes. But since your life is lived with N=1 and you can't generally change your innate intelligence, that is not usually relevant to guide decision making.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> _[perhaps obsolete now that the title 's been changed]_

> the author uses a witty title on an article on business strategy

> the HN poster keeps the title almost verbatim, as is tradition

> people in the thread commence writing about the title instead of the > article's content

So it goes.

</comment><comment><USER76> I don't really understand the point of the article. It seems to be challenging an assumption that being "smart" has something to do with being financially successful. But why would we start with that assumption? Why would we conflate being "intelligent" with being good at making money?

To me, this seems as preposterous as asking "if you're so smart, why are you so bad at playing the violin, or why aren't you a Hollywood movie star, or why can't you run a 4 minute mile, or why don't you have a million Twitter followers?"

Even if we make the questionable assumption that the very concept of general intelligence (something like what an IQ test purports to show) is sensible, why would we assume that it correlates positively with success in any conceivable discipline?

<comment><USER77> Nah it just means too many people think they are "smart" while not applying their supposed edge to get any practical thing done better.

Money is just one example. The baseline is "if you are so smart why how come you don't have a better life", this can be more money, a better job, more time for your children, a hotter wife for some.

If you don't like the materialistic versions, My personal version of it is "if you are so smart why are you complaining so much instead of fixing your problems"..

<comment><USER78> love your personal version

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> There is no correlation between being an idiot and being rich. Being rich is (in most cases) the ability to... Sell yourself, for the lack of a better expression. And smart people commonly can't sell themselves or their products because they often solve problems which are far more complex than the ones ordinary people have. They will spend brutal amounts of resources and efforts to solve a problem which ordinary people just don't have. Ask any developer how often have they been in a non-tech circle having a casual conversation and saying "Wait, you paid how much for someone to do X?"

X usually being the work of two (below) average Joe developers which can be done in a few weeks. And there you are, sitting and wondering how to build something big.

Which is another common mistake: people rarely become rich overnight and it's a gradual process. You are looking at people who are light years ahead of you, while the route to success is a tight and windy mountain road, full of crests and dips. Looking at the people standing on the mountain peak isn't productive and doesn't give you any valuable information. It's those who are one or two corners ahead of you that you need to be looking at.

<comment><USER80> > There is no correlation between being an idiot and being rich

Correction: there is actually a rather strong correlation [0].

Of course it is not a perfect correlation and a lot depends on other factors like luck or hard work. So out of a billion people you can always point to millions who are outliers.

[0][https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/income-by-afqt- cop...](https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/income-by-afqt- copy-w640.png)

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> There is a correlation between intelligent and income but we have been conditioned to misunderstand what intelligence is. we are taught that schooling is as sign of intelligence but that is just a sign of Memory and a sign of formatting. Many people fail because their ideas as are not formatted correctly or their ability to remember remember during an exam. There are many people who have failed education and still succeed in their dreams. Elon Musk is an example where he said "I didn't go to Harvard but all my lawyers did".Is Musk more intelligent that his lawyers even though he does not have the same education. So what is intelligence? The issues is also how do you measure success. May people choose Money as that quantifies things and then we can compare. The main issue is Quality is not comparable. Neither is Happiness. Success can only be measured with yourself. because you have to do the things that need doing to get into the positions to be seen as dumb. The Politician who says some really dumb thing or the businessman that does not seem to know what he is doing, have done some really smart things to be in a position to be dumb.

<comment><USER82> Musk went to an Ivy League...

> While awaiting Canadian documentation, Musk attended the University of > Pretoria for five months.[51] Once in Canada, Musk entered Queen's > University in 1989, avoiding mandatory service in the South African > military.[52] He left in 1992 to study economics and physics at the > University of Pennsylvania; he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in > economics and a Bachelor of Science degree in physics.[53][54][failed > verification]

src: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk)

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> Since this is about money, isn't that a bias? I mean what are the chances of "son of (insert a billionaire name here)" to be rich vs me. TBH I can be stupid too with that amount of money, since I can _afford_ it.

</comment><comment><USER84> To answer the question posed in the title (and yes, I read the fluffy article) - luck decides who gets rich.

<comment><USER85> I think that's needlessly reductionist. Read the biographies of people like Mark Cuban and Richard Branson: both of these men were born entrepreneurs and salesmen, with Cuban starting his first business at age 12 and Branson at age 16.

A good parallel to this is the music industry, actually: yes, there is a significant amount of luck in "making it." But you cannot deny that talent is one of the strongest predictors: at the very least, talent is the bar to entry.

<comment><USER86> Looking at examples of successful people is classic survivorship bias. Smart people who lucked out on their businesses do not get to write biographies.

EDIT: spelling

<comment><USER61> Being smart may not be sufficient, but seems necessary atleast to make your own money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> Well, the title is easy to answer, even many exceptionally talented people are never rich, and there's a significant amount of luck involved in being rich. It's pretty easy to be smarter than many people while never having financial success, or respect, or an audience or whatever.

It's worth picking up the actual thesis from the article though. If for example Hastings is rich, does that mean he's not an idiot (or does not often make idiotic decisions)?

It lowers the chance obviously but on the other hand fame and money is often fleeting. The average S&P 500 company now lives _fewer than 20 years_. So that means a lot of people who could be considered to have made good decisions in the recent past will fuck up in the near future.

The fat tailed nature of tech investing means that someone can make 30 bad decisions and one good one and be insanely rich. At the end of the day they often just survived the bad ones, but you'd still have been right in calling them out on the 29 bad ones.

So I think on a case-by-case basis net-worth is a shoddy indicator.

<comment><USER88> > average S&P 500 company now lives fewer than 20 years

No, the average age of an S&P 500 company is now less than 20 years. Which is heavily influenced by the rise of technology and the many S&P 500 companies that were created in the last ~20 years. It does not mean that companies are dying faster, just that S&P 500 is filled with young companies.

<comment><USER87> I don't think that's correct, at least according to this soruce ([https://www.imd.org/research-knowledge/articles/why-you- will...](https://www.imd.org/research-knowledge/articles/why-you-will- probably-live-longer-than-most-big-companies/))

 _" A recent study by McKinsey found that the average life-span of companies listed in Standard & Poor's 500 was 61 years in 1958. Today, it is less than 18 years. McKinsey believes that, in 2027, 75% of the companies currently quoted on the S&P 500 will have disappeared. They will be bought- out, merged, or will go bankrupt like Enron and Lehman Brothers."_

<comment><USER88> I didn't see any evidence backing up their estimates nor any number that represent how many former S&P 500 companies go out of business. The studies I could find listed some of the companies that fell out of the S&P500 and AFAICT most of them still exist.

I would be careful about taking McKinsey's carefully crafted quotes and projections at face value. 'Disappeared' is intentionally vague. They also intentionally use age of a company when talking about the past and tenure on the S&P500 when talking about the future to make the numbers seem more dramatic[1]. It's part of their sales pitch - "it's harder than ever to run a company so you should really hire a consulting company to save you".

[1] [https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Electri...](https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Electric%20Power%20and%20Natural%20Gas/Our%20Insights/Traditional%20company%20new%20businesses%20The%20pairing%20that%20can%20ensure%20an%20incumbents%20survival/Traditional- company-new-businesses-VF.ashx) (page 4)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> Money an intelligence rarely correlate. I know many very smart people that are just not interested in creating the business, though they are working on super complex things just for the sake of science.

Also there are lots of idiots why can become rich. There are so many opportunities.

So you can be absolutely right saying that some guy is an idiot even if he has billions.

<comment><USER90> Depends on what you call "Money"

If you meant income, you are wrong.

If you meant wealth, you are right.

Just do a quick google search with income and IQ correlation. Random first article: [https://ifstudies.org/blog/can-intelligence-predict- income](https://ifstudies.org/blog/can-intelligence-predict-income) , don't even know if it's a good source, but google was showing results for IQ having a correlation to income, and also for show results saying IQ having no correlation to wealth.

You own words:

> Though they are working on super complex things just for the sake of science

Those kind of things tend to pay higher that you usual trade job, and are only available to higher than average IQ. Wealth and Income are very distinct things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> >When internet commentators see odd behavior that they don't understand, why do they assume that the most parsimonious explanation is that management must be a bunch of drooling morons?

I don't think most internet commentators have the patience or even the interest of painting an accurate picture. Most of them are shitposting.

</comment><comment><USER92> "If you secretly despise wealth, it will elude you."

</comment><comment><USER93> Even thieves can be rich. Even idiots can learn how to steal.

</comment><comment><USER94> Whenever you see someone who you believe to be an idiot succeeding, it usually means they're really good at the game _and you don 't even understand what the game is_.

<comment><USER95> So Trump is really good at the political game, for instance?

<comment><USER96> Trump is a world-class salesman. And this skill is more about instinct than cerebral/deep thinking, which is why nerds "just don't get it".

Check Scott Adams' writing on Trump's persuasion abilities.

<comment><USER46> >Trump is a world-class salesman.

When did Mexico agree to pay for the wall?

<comment><USER97> He's not world class at selling walls. He's world class at selling Donald Trump.

<comment><USER46> Unfortunately, selling "walls" (policy) is his actual job.

He's like a vacuum cleaner salesman who can always get his foot in the door, but can never manage to sell a unit.

<comment><USER97> Not quite.

He's like a vacuum salesman who promises to give his customers dishwashers and toasters for free if they buy a vacuum cleaner.

When they buy the vacuum cleaner, it turns out he lied about the other goods but they still ended up with the vacuum cleaner. But what a lot of people really wanted was the dishwasher.

I may have pushed the analogy a little too far...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> Should be: > If idiots call everyone else idiots, how come their are not rich?

<comment><USER43> The author probably is, assuming she bought NFLX.

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> A much more thoughtful treatment of this problem is "The Dictator's Handbook." There are three possible explanations:

1) The CEO knows something I don't.

2) The CEO is dumb.

Those are rarely it. The third one is:

3) The CEO is optimizing for personal wealth / fame / success, and there are political considerations.

Most CEOs can recognize that a business decision can be absolutely the right thing to do for the business and not make that decision if it either would cost them (1) their standing with shareholders (2) their annual bonus (3) their standing with the board (4) their standing with internal constituents.

The key skill CEOs need to be CEOs can be summarized as: "How to become a CEO." That involves a lot more management of politics than it does business success (but still a fair measure of both). Furthermore, if a strategy leads to business success but costs a CEO their job, they cannot take that strategy.

<comment><USER100> It blows my mind how people can come here and attempt to write a serious answer claiming the CEO "rarely" knows something his armchair critic doesn't (as a basis for their "bad" decision). Then proceed to peddle cliches and conspiracies.

Also, shareholders aren't stupid, they usually reward CEOs for good business decisions and so does the board. Sometimes it's unclear what is better long- term and short-term results are preferred, but nobody knowingly punishes or fires a CEO for a good decision. That just exists in the imagination of people whose involvement with business decisions consists of reading Dilbert cartoons.

<comment><USER99> ... to the extent you consider one of the most influential and best-researched management books a "cliche and conspiracy."

I'll mention I didn't claim that a CEO rarely knows something a critic doesn't; just that things like the CEO's greater understanding of something like market dynamics are rarely the basis of what is externally perceived to be a "bad" decision by an armchair critic. The basis is usually political dynamics (which most armchair critics have far less insight into than the CEO -- the information gap is greater).

And as a shareholder, I can say I don't think my intelligence matters very much in this story. The amount of time and thought I can put into each company in my portfolio is what matters. That's both especially true because I have index funds, and why I have index funds.

As a footnote, if you'd like a more extreme take on this, Pfeffer's Power is a good read (but quite controversial -- the book basically makes the claim that CEOs are fundamentally psychopaths). Pfeffer is at Stanford.

Dictator's Handbook is considered hardly controversial at all. It's a game- theoretic argument, backed by pretty good data. The author is at New York University.

I'll also mention that simply insulting the poster of an argument ("just exists in the imagination of people whose involvement with business decisions consists of reading Dilbert cartoons") doesn't strengthen your point. You know nothing about my background. It just makes you look like you're either a jerk, or ran out of sound arguments.

<comment><USER100> > _Pfeffer 's Power is a good read (but quite controversial -- the book > basically makes the claim that CEOs are fundamentally psychopaths)._

Can you point me to a summary that makes this claim? Because [https://www.slideshare.net/johnnemo/power-by-jeffrey- pfeffer...](https://www.slideshare.net/johnnemo/power-by-jeffrey-pfeffer-key- takeaways) certainly doesn't.

> _You know nothing about my background. It just makes you look like you 're > either a jerk, or ran out of sound arguments._

You made 2 appeals to authority - of dubious authenticity - and I have no reason to assume you wouldn't make a 3rd if you thought it'd give you extra points. My background is: ex-CEO.

<comment><USER99> No, I can point you to reading the books.

If you're don't read books, I don't think this is a bridge you'll cross. And I'm sorry you find two respected professors, one at NYU and one at Stanford, to be of dubious authenticity. I'm not quite sure where to go from there in the conversation. There are many individuals who find Pfeffer dubious, but de Mesquita is extremely highly regarded.

I'm not going to share my background on the internet, but ex-CEO doesn't make you qualified to talk about much of anything. It depends on the organization. I've virtually never seen these sorts of dynamics at organizations below 100 people, and they don't become universal until around 1000-10,000 people. You need to reach a certain scale of competition before people start acting in ways which are game-theoretically optimal. If you have 10 people, it's easy to keep alignment on mission, vision, community, and business. If you have e.g. 10,000 people, and 1% are gunning for CEO, the only way to get to the top is to out-gun the other 99. That competition is what leads to these dynamics.

<comment><USER100> > _And I 'm sorry you find two respected professors, one at NYU and one at > Stanford, to be of dubious authenticity._

Obvious straw man. I have no qualms with those professors, just with your claims about their books, which at least one summary contains no trace of. Should I read those books merely to verify your claims? I'm not so sure.

> _I 've virtually never seen these sorts of dynamics at organizations below > 100 people, and they don't become universal until around 1000-10,000 people_

So your initial claims don't apply to CEOs of corporations with less than 1000 people? Moving the goalpost much?

<comment><USER99> Your username suggests you shouldn't read these books. You should skim notes about these books and write obnoxious posts based on those, claiming the person you're talking to is lying based on no evidence at all.

Indeed, Dictator's Handbook has a nice summary someone posted in this thread. Your link wasn't even a summary, but someone's take-home notes for their own career.

> So your initial claims don't apply to CEOs of corporations with less than > 1000 people? Moving the goalpost much?

That's where the goalposts started. They haven't moved an inch. The article was talking about Reed Hastings and Netflix. We were talking about publicly- traded companies with shareholders. "Power" talks about ... power. CEO of a 5-man shop isn't power. It talks about how people climb to the top of corporate ladders at big organizations, and the selection mechanism for who makes CEO. Dictator's Handbook is about big organizations too. It's a game- theoretic treatment.

Obviously some context went over your head. Maybe that goes with digital communications, or maybe that goes with not being interested in longer texts, so much as in skimming summaries.

<comment><USER100> > _The article was talking about Reed Hastings and Netflix. We were talking > about publicly-traded companies with shareholders._

You were writing about "most CEOs". Pardon me for taking you literally and/or seriously.

> _maybe that goes with not being interested in longer texts, so much as in > skimming summaries._

I'm very interested in worthwhile texts, just not based on recommendations by people making obviously false claims on the Internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> I've many times tried to people make money but they get pretty defensive with their ideas and dreams and their plans, so I've decided different way, I drop them hints if I care for them enough and move on.

A lot of people just look at cause Vs effect in a wrong w

</comment><comment><USER102> > _I think we should eliminate the corporate income tax . . . and tax income > once, when it hits a person._

LOL what? Can't have it both ways, pal.

I've seen this line of thought expressed a few times before, and it strikes me as disingenuous to hold that a corporation is a person... right up until the moment that idea puts slightly less money in your pocket.

<comment><USER103> Corporation tax does have its problems though. In particular it's easy for globalised companies to shift profits around the world to avoid paying it.

Personally I'd rather we started treating dividends and even capital gains as normal income and eliminate corporation tax.

</comment></comment><comment><USER100> I love the way people who consider themselves smart rationalize their lack of success/wealth, including here.

\- I don't want to be wealthy anyway

\- To be wealthy you have to be ruthless and I prefer to be nice

\- smart people are so busy with issues much more important than money

\- wealthy people are just lucky idiots

\- wealthy people are just idiots who are better at exploiting other idiots

\- people who are wealthy spend their lives chasing wealth instead of enjoying it

It's sad that people refuse to acknowledge that assuming responsibility for one's own or even their family's lives means to take care of every aspect of it, including financial issues. If you are "too busy" to take care of your finances to the best of your abilities, you are incompetent and not in control of your life.

<comment><USER77> This is so true i don't understand the downvotes

<comment><USER15> It's getting downvoted because it's not a good argument. Accusing the people you disagree with of coming to their conclusions through motivated reasonsing neither actually addresses the logical arguments people are making, or gives the people you're disagreeing with any intellectual credit. It also throws up some horrendous strawmen - you have to be _rich_ to take care of your family?

Want to have an open conversation with someone you disagree with? I have a good tip, don't open the conversation by accusing them of being incompetent and not in control of their own lives.

<comment><USER77> Ok here's the conversation, but the thing is that it's not reeeealy a debate: "Money is good to have".

But everytime you say exactly this, there are swarms of people trying to explain to you why it's not so important. It's just pure rationalisation.

That doesn't mean "you should or shouldn't dedicate your life to money because it will not make you happy", but this specic argument IS the strawman people give usually everytime you talk about money, and THIS is actually how most people actually kill the conversation.

<comment><USER100> It's not even only money that gets this reaction. Every time somebody shows off or is lauded for having something that would actually take critics some effort to achieve, such reactions are common. Whether it's muscles (body building is ugly, unhealthy, only possible with horrible drugs...), good looks or many children. People will find some disadvantages and let you know.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Neil Postman Revisited – Are we having too much fun - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/04/are-we-having-too-much-fun/523143/ <comment><USER2> For anyone interested in a brief exposition of Postman's thinking, his "Five Things We Should Know About Technological Change" speech transcription is a good read:

[https://www.technodystopia.org/](https://www.technodystopia.org/)</comment>


Ryzen processor overclocking under Linux - <AUTHOR> CoreFreq developments are bringing new features to alter the P0 P-State frequency of AMD Zen family. This will change the Processor base clock and thus the kernel major variables such as the loops_per_jiffy are being recalibrated using unique & hand crafted asm TSC algorithms.
The state of developments had made possible to increase the 3950X straight to its 4.7 GHz, single Core. TSC clock source is a WiP.
Preview available at https://github.com/cyring/CoreFreq/tree/develop
As part of the master branch, Intel & AMD CPUs can already be OCed through their Turbo boost ratios. <comment><USER2> You should mention that default single core Max boost clock for 3950X is 4.7 GHz by AMD specs and most reviews have usually got values between 4.5 GHz and 4.6 GHz. Percentage wise gains for single core test are so small that there really isn't a reason to do that (this applies to all new modern top of the line desktop CPUs).</comment>


AI travel assistant with voice understanding on Telegram – Eddy Travels - <AUTHOR> https://www.eddytravels.com/blog/2019/8/9/eddy-travels-ai-travel-assistant-on-telegram <comment><USER2> Hey HN folks, I'm a co-founder and CEO at Eddy Travels startup. If you have Telegram chat app, please try out our chatbot with custom natural language processing for travel context - would really appreciate your feedback!

You will find great flight deals - with Eddy Travels we show the cheapest flight deals you can find out there, guaranteed.

Edmundas Co-founder and CEO at Eddy Travels</comment>


How Crash Bandicoot hacked the original Playstation [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izxXGuVL21o <comment><USER2> Admittedly way less thorough/cool than the YouTube video, but we created a limited pre-emptive multi-tasking system on the original Playstation to run our physics engine at a constant frequency. Sony US and Sony Japan said it couldn't be done.

We eventually figured out how to use the vertical blank interrupt to save all the registers, modify the return addres to return from the interrupt to our physics code, then our physics code would run (not in the interrupt context), then restore the registers and longjmp back to the main game code which had been originally interrupted by the vertical blank interrupt.

This wasn't general-purpose pre-emption and had only fixed divisors of the screen refresh rate available, but was enough to get our physics engine to run close to isochronously.

Side note: our game was comparatively terrible and I remember being in awe of what the Crash Bandicoot team accomplished in gameplay and graphics.

<comment><USER3> Sounds awesome and reminds of the good old times. I don't know much about consoles but in the home computer era, a ton of the awesome stuff was accomplished by clever trickery triggered by interrupts generated by the electron beam.

The Commodore 64 for example could trigger an interrupt at an arbitrary screen position and not just H-blank or V-blank. We used to call these _raster interrupts_. Graphics on the screen border, simultaneous graphics and text mode, split screen effects, more than 8 hardware sprites and the light pen were all things that were only possible on the C64 because of that capability. If you want to learn about this check out Shallan50k on Twitch, he does awesome streams about these techniques. The Acorn is a good counterexample of a _much_ more powerful machine which lacked the ability to do raster interrupts and that is in my opinion one major reason the Acorn had relatively poor graphics.

<comment><USER4> Yes. It's possible to do on the Acorn but few games at the time took the trouble to do so. It requires very accurate cycle counting. There have been a number of recent demos that take things to the next level though, and someone has even got raster interrupts working on the Electron, which is frankly astonishing: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUl1SGUSkbI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUl1SGUSkbI)

<comment><USER3> I've also heard that there is a hardware mod to give the Acorn true raster interrupts.

<comment><USER5> Like the Apple 2, having so much logic exposed, due to use of discrete logic chips, there are mods to do lots of things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What a great video. Beyond the slick presentation with all the cool animations, it really captures what Andy's like as a person. Amazing talent of course, but also an almost perverse joy in doing things you're not supposed to be able to do within the constraints you have.

This brought back so many memories, including heroic stuff Andy and Mark did on the character animation that I had completely forgotten about. I also personally postdated the discussions about how to deal with an extra dimension -- I joined soon after work on Crash (then "Willy") began -- but that part was super interesting.

(For those wondering: I worked on Crash 1 and 2 with Andy, Jason, and the other mid 90s Naughty Dogs.)

<comment><USER7> This is you, right?

[https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DaveBaggett/20131031/203788/...](https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DaveBaggett/20131031/203788/My_Hardest_Bug_Ever.php)

I really enjoyed that story.

I had a random question about this: I remember Crash 1 had a password-based "save" system where the player could skip ahead to a level if they entered the password for it.

Was the creation of that system motivated by the as-of-yet-unsolved memory card bug? Or was it just standard practice to support players that didn't buy the memory card? I can't remember many games using something like that, but it was a long time ago.

<comment><USER6> That is me, yes -- thank you! Actually the password save capability was _mandated_ by Sony. At that time they wouldn't approve your game if you didn't offer a card-less save mode. I guess they thought requiring people to have memory cards made the base system too expensive.

Fun fact: the code to convert the bits of saved game state to PS controller buttons used modular exponentiation, as in the RSA algorithm. Carl de Marcken suggested this method; I asked him to recommend something because at the time I really didn't know anything about hashing or crypto. There's an HN post somewhere from a guy who reversed engineered it.

After Crash I joined Carl at ITA Software (now Google Flights), where he was Chief Scientist.

<comment><USER8> Link to the post referred to in case anyone else is curious [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9376793](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9376793)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Many, many games of the older gens (before 2000) worked by "hacking" their console, if by hacking you mean using part of it in ways it wasn't supposed to or to do something entirely different from what it was supposed to do. From very old 8 bit era "gaming computer" cheating around their CPUs or CRT screens to achieve effects that shouldn't be possible (also very popular in the demo scene), to games on the Saturn being forced to use the mashup of random chips to their best advantage (like running some graphics computation on one of the audio chips), they had to make with what they had.

It's not so much that modern dev are not as capable, but modern console are much more malleable and offer much more power relatively speaking. Basically they're PC. The last console which required special tricks was the PS3, because the Cell was a weird ass architecture totally unsuited to mainly single core games, so devs had to do what they could to make it run well. When you look at old stuff, it's less "wow they were great to achieve that with such poor hardware" and more "I genuinely don't think it's possible to do that with the resources available ..." So they cheated. Or hacked. Whatever you want to call it.

The Saturn and PSX had some insane stuff. Go look at the tech specs of the PSX and tell me as a dev you think it's reasonnable to expect games like Metal Gear Solid, Crash Bandicoot, etc ... To run on that thing.

But still, the crown of "dev has to cheat around to do anything that wasn't 2d" remains with the Saturn, the best worst design ever for a console.

On PC we have few equivalent because our chips have always been very multi purpose, historically they were merely vastly underpowered compared to specialized hardware console had (which is why Carmack's 2d and 3d marvels in the early 90s were so impressive, getting an engine similar to keen or wolfenstein or doom isn't very hard, getting it to run fast on the hardware of the time ... Well there is a reason the guy's name is known the way it is).

War stories of developpers of that era are some of the best things to read as a non-dev game that enjoy reading about doing stuff you shouldn't be able to do. I remember reading such a thing about Panzer Dragoon II Zwei on the Saturn and it was so great, but apparently I didn't save the link and can't find it back.

<comment><USER10> FX fighter is my favorite example on PC. Sure, the mechanics were a little shallow and camera bugs because it's 3d in 1995, but it ran on a 486/66 surprisingly well!

Tie fighter and X wing are other examples in their own right as well. Maybe the graphics weren't that great, but I'm sure managing the game world, dynamic music and 3d at the time was quite the task.

<comment><USER9> Every 3d game on pc that didn't require a dedicated 3d card ans still ran somwhat well is basically a marvel, tech-wise

I also had a 486/66 and I loved that thing but it was slow as hell, what so many dev achieved with it is humbling

<comment><USER11> I used a 486 66dx2 with 20 megs of ram until 2001 when I got a laptop for college. FreeBSD and console only programs but it got the job done. Did all my high school work on it and an external X2 modem. Even brought it to college and slapped a network card in it to act as a proxy server. They have us 1 gig of data per day. But they did it by MAC address not port. So I just had all my friends proxy over to that box and it would just change MACs right before the gig. Unlimited data!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The most interesting thing for me was the use of Lisp they did:

[https://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/03/12/making-crash-ba...](https://all- things-andy-gavin.com/2011/03/12/making-crash-bandicoot-gool-part-9/)

To read this was a very important resource for my own education. I was shown the power of Lisp by a man that looked wired to emacs and so fast typing I could not follow him on the screen that solved problems orders of magnitude faster than me using this "wizard language" I could not understand.

It was mind blowing but at the same time very confusing, so I started searching material over Lisp that I could digest one step at a time and(combined with books I bought) that was very useful because it talked about real problems, not super simple simplifications like books did.

</comment><comment><USER13> A nice writeup about making Crash is this one: [https://all-things-andy- gavin.com/2011/02/02/making-crash-ba...](https://all-things-andy- gavin.com/2011/02/02/making-crash-bandicoot-part-1/)

<comment><USER14> That was written by the guy from the video, in case you didn't realize.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've heard cool stories from game development before, but this guy is on another level. These aren't just neat hacks, these are serious engineering feats. Several of them. For Crash Bandicoot.

\- A custom animation compression system

\- A custom memory paging system between memory and disc

\- Reverse-engineering the hardware and standard lib

Edit: Apparently at the time he already had a PhD from MIT and had worked with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Gavin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Gavin)

<comment><USER16> The animation compression system really stood out to me as well. It seems back when hardware was the limitation, people had to be literal geniuses to develop games. Now with so much middleware and so many pre-cooked engines available, people are left less with the challenge of accomplishing the technicals and more on creating an enveloping story and challenging gameplay mechanics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The more I hear about Crash Bandicoot, the more I wish someone like Fabien Sanglard wrote a book about it. It seems like there are so many cool solutions implemented in it. It was also made at what seems like such a pivotal time for games, forcing so many innovations, such as those mentioned in the video.

Like the custom LISP-like scripting language called GOOL[0] which in its evolved form is still in use in some games for at Naughty Dog even today.

[0]: [https://mobile.twitter.com/JoakimRi/status/11019084263540572...](https://mobile.twitter.com/JoakimRi/status/1101908426354057216)

<comment><USER18> Are you familiar with the 13 part blog post [0] from Andy Gavin that's basically a short book all about Crash's making?

[0]: [https://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/02/02/making-crash- ba...](https://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/02/02/making-crash-bandicoot- part-1/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Really interesting video and great way to present with animations and awesome explanations.

</comment><comment><USER20> That's really cool. I played Crash 1 extensively on Connectix Virtual Game Station, which was able to play virtually every major PS 1 game perfectly.

Impressive it did so well given all the tricks employed.

Does anyone have a write-up or details on the how/what/whys of Connectix Virtual Game Station? (And, while I'm there, what about Ultra HLE?)

<comment><USER21> No info on the Connectix Virtual Game Station but you might like this video about UltraHLE. Sparks memories for me and I remember the day when Ultra HLE was released.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NF5sU_n0uk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NF5sU_n0uk)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I feel a little bit regretful that I became a programmer in an era when technical achievement doesn't usually translate to meaningful improvements in video game size/complexity/visuals. The games created today at AAA studios who employ hundreds and are constantly pushing the envelope only end up looking, subjectively, maybe 10% better than tiny indie games that run in Unity and have decent art direction. For most of us, there aren't meaningful limitations to be inspired by anymore.

<comment><USER22> Couldn't agree more. I'm definitely never as impressed by AAA titles as I am with clever use of design in indie titles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> What a great series! I also greatly enjoyed the Lorne Lanning (Oddworld) episode, he's a great hero of mine: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7f0YtzWBG4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7f0YtzWBG4)

</comment><comment><USER24> I was very excited to see Blender used as the program for explaining 3d graphics concepts like bones. I was expecting them to use Maya or some other proprietary software. Excellent video all around!

</comment><comment><USER25> Related articles:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9737156](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9737156)

[https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DaveBaggett/20131031/203788/...](https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DaveBaggett/20131031/203788/My_Hardest_Bug_Ever.php)

Context helps; Crash was the playstation mario (or more appropriately, Sonic), a mascot, first-tier title & hoped-for killer app for the new console. I used to have a direct link to an article where they copped to tapping system memory in violation of Sony's developer rules, but justified by the ends.

<comment><USER26> Sony's developer rules are like YouTube's content policy: arbitrarily restrictive, but may be waived for favored parties. For example, SCEA (but not SCEJ!) had a "no sprite games" rule. The American marketing for the PlayStation leaned heavily on its 3D graphics and overall "next-gen-ness". Games that relied heavily on 2D sprite graphics were seen as detrimental to the console's image because they looked like something from the fourth console generation. But big-name developers could get exceptions for flagship titles, as Capcom did for _Street Fighter Alpha_ and _Mega Man 8_. So we lost out on interesting sprite games from smaller developers that were released in the Japanese market because of this policy.

It's no surprise, therefore, that Naughty Dog got away with violating a Sony policy -- even about messing with system memory -- to create a "system seller" title.

<comment><USER25> Yes, the article in reference mentioned other developers harboring conspiracies like ' secret PlayStation libraries' supposedly at naughty dog's disposal, but actual credit by the developers was to their use of Lisp as a secret low level language, though admitting they also bent\broke some rules in the process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Has anyone ever dumped/reverse engineered the official Sony SDK/libraries for the PS1? I'd just be curious what the C code looked like.

</comment><comment><USER28> I loved every second of this video. And I also loved every minute I spent playing and beating this game as a kid. Such an amazing game!

</comment><comment><USER29> This was a phenomenal interview, learned many rich nuggets.

I'm curious to go back to the "old days of graphics" with limited RAM, loading from slow CDs, etc. & program like that myself, where can I start?</comment>