| ▲ | iknowstuff 12 hours ago |
| How many peaked with our curiosity and exploration software engineering as teenagers and subsequently got ground down by 9to5 corporate soul drain T_T |
|
| ▲ | nemosaltat 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Poverty (of youth or otherwise) is also a pretty powerful motivation to “tinker.” I spent a lot of time with OSX86, and ended up getting proficient enough (multiple all-nighters trying to get it to boot and get the right kexts loaded early on) to run semi-stable Tiger thru Lion on random PCs and my girlfriend’s Vaio Laptop. Then, one day I could afford a MacBook and basically stopped being as curious about that. Decade or so later, ProxMox allowed me to run Capitan thru Mojave virtually, while more recently it makes more sense (and less legal dubiousness) to just buy macs as/if I need them. Overall, I’m still pretty curious, but not curious enough to risk a “hacky” solution when I can mitigate it for relatively low $ |
|
| ▲ | nout 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's not business critical to answer your curiosity now. File it as a ticket, put it on a backlog and move on. |
|
| ▲ | Aurornis 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Very, very few people came anywhere near this level of focus and execution at the same age. People like this are truly extraordinary. You could give a lot of engineers infinite financial runway and no corporate job ever and they’d still never reach this level of performance. Some people really are next level. |
| |
| ▲ | nektro 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | not true | | |
| ▲ | stoneforger 30 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Many people have this potential but it doesn't necessarily materialize or evolves. That's fine, that's okay. We'll always have Paris. The trick is to be fulfilled, not renowned. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bsimpson 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I remember being a teenager and intentionally dialing down my ambitions, because it was socially uncomfortable to have people's perceptions of me be tied to the things I excelled in. Figured I had my whole life to have a job, so didn't really wanna do a startup or anything like that. Watched all the Macworld et. al. keynotes and knew all the specs of all the devices, until I got tired of being pigeonholed as "the computer kid." |
| |
| ▲ | banku_brougham 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is an urgently dark pattern to avoid for parents, but I feel helpless as my own development was heckuv random | |
| ▲ | jack_pp 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not sure I follow, you were afraid of being a "nerd" and dialed your ambitions to try to be "cooler"? "because it was socially uncomfortable to have people's perceptions of me be tied to the things I excelled in." I think usually it's the other way around, or I'm not understanding this correctly. I was best at math in my class from grades 5 through 12 but never felt "awkward" because of it, rather I felt proud. Which is also wrong but I digress | | |
| ▲ | fenykep 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I interpreted it as "my parents/peers love me for who I am and not for being a really basketball player".
Might be projecting tho. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | benoau 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just take the top ticket, thanks. |
|
| ▲ | nnevatie 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| All aboard the soul tra…erhm…drain! |
|
| ▲ | mid-kid 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It stings how much I relate to this. |
|
| ▲ | HumblyTossed 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But how much wealthier are you? |
|
| ▲ | varispeed 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you have brilliant mind, but you were born poor / working class, then sure you'll be crushed by 9 to 5 inevitably, where your talents will be ruthlessly "harvested" for the benefits of shareholders until you burn out and get thrown out like a used rag. If you have talents, use them to achieve financial freedom and then do what you want. Sometimes it is through 9 to 5 unfortunately. Never make a mistake of "climbing corporate ladder". Earn money, invest, don't try to leave beyond your means. You might have great salary, but don't get tempted by renting a nice pad or getting a nice car. It's a trap to keep you enslaved in 9 to 5 forever. |
| |
| ▲ | sysworld 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yep this. Avoid lifestyle creep (when you get raises). Invest your money (e.g. world passive mutual fund, or VT ETF). Don't sell investments when the market crashes, just ride it out (assuming you bought diversified fund). Don't stock pick, it's largely gambling and 99% of people can't beat the market doing it. If you must stock pick, do at most, 5% of your investments.
Avoid actively managed/high fee mutual funds/ETFs. Research clearly shows, long term they do worse then the market. (And if there is an active fund that does end up beating the market long term, you have no way of knowing which fund that would be ahead of time) The Millionaire Next Door is a great book, and gives a good perspective on money. If anyone here is interested, Google the FIRE movement (Financial Independence, Retire Early).
Even just doing the first 2 letters, Financial Independence, would be huge, and give you way more flexibility. When/if you retire early, keep doing things to keep your mind and body active. Most people who retire stop doing the things that kept them healthy, and there body deteriorates quickly (with xyz illnesses). The sad true is that, for many, work forces them to do the basics to keep your body running ok. | | |
| ▲ | erxam 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But what's the point of it being long-term? I want fuck-off money right now. What's the point of having a bit of money when I'm old, can barely leave the house and everyone and everything I cared about is long gone? Why do I want to have a million in the bank by age 70 if I'm going to kill myself by age 30-35? | | |
| ▲ | nick__m 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How old are you ? I used to espouse similar view but now that I am past 40, I regret not starting investing in my 20 and see myself living well into my 80's. That punk-ish no future mentality usually dampen past 30-35! | | |
| ▲ | hunter-gatherer 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is true. On the other hand, I've found myself lately starting to wane a little bit the other way. Let me explain. I'm doing ok, because I got involvednin the FIRE movement early and invested early. Now about to be 40, and having a couple kids, I've realized that so long as I have no debt and good security (enough to see my kids into adulthood) then what is the money for??? To be clear, I haven't started spending my retirement money yet, but I already know I'm never going to quit working. So.... I don't know, you know? |
| |
| ▲ | greazy 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | My very good colleague who was absolutely brilliant statistician shared his wisdom: Max the now, min the future. He focused on the present but hated work, it was utterly boring to him, even if objectively the work benefited humanity. One day he quit and never came back. He spent his time learning to dance salsa. He was in his mid to late twenties. Of course he was an extreme case. But his zen is important to take and balance together with future planning. I think you can do both, aim for fuck off money but put aside a little bit for the future. Edit: if youre wondering what happend to him - he's studying electrical engineering because I suspect he's aiming to not be behind a desk. | |
| ▲ | tdhz77 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Take out your retirement early. Live on it for 5 years and then back to the grind for 5. Live your best life and die with zero not a million. | | |
| ▲ | ThrowawayR2 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That was great advice for the '00s and '10s but is absolutely insane advice in 2026. | |
| ▲ | greazy 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In that 5 years your industry would have left you behind :( unfortunately. Unless you do the type of job that allows this style of living but afaik, it's not tech. |
| |
| ▲ | nntwozz 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 70 is the new 30 didn't you get the memo? |
| |
| ▲ | zozbot234 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Yep this. Avoid lifestyle creep (when you get raises). Invest your money This is great advice anyway, even if you were born poor/working class. With the added proviso that you should be paying down your debt, highest interest rate first, since that will have far higher returns than your average investment. Also make sure that you have enough liquid cash set aside that you'll be able to deal quickly and completely with any issues that might come up; this makes a significant difference to your ability to live and work stress-free. |
| |
| ▲ | banku_brougham 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Adding my voice of concurrence, I would say 'Comrade' but people take it the wrong way. |
|
|
| ▲ | fellowniusmonk 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I was born with heart defects and pre ACA had to be a wage slave to get health insurance. The moment ACA happened I started several successful businesses. Honestly we already should have contribution/impact based merit threshold UBI with a much lower barrier than research grants or even just time limited UBI systems for youth and adults that meet a contribution threshold. VC allocation is too biased towards group think, profit motivation, predatory contracts and hold on to top many class and cultural artifacts. Yes of course it would be difficult to implement but difficult isn't impossible and gradiated rollouts can help catch unintended side effects. We need to push more money into the hands of the intrinsically motivated. Society already is catering to the whims of consumers and feed zombies. |
| |
| ▲ | AndrewDucker 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Or you could have universal healthcare. Which everyone else seems to manage and would untie a lot of people from specific jobs. | | |
| ▲ | musictubes 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Abortion is currently too divisive in the US to get a national health care system going. One side will absolutely refuse to include it and the other will absolutely require it. If one side brute forces it there will be immense backlash. Along similar lines it isn't clear that having the federal government controlling healthcare at a more fundamental level is a good idea. Many (most?) would shudder at the thought of this administration controlling healthcare. | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Other places can only afford universal healthcare to begin with because their healthcare sector is not nearly as corrupt or shackled by a huge amount of government regulation that was only put in place here for self-serving reasons. It's not about the model of provision, it's about whether the sector itself is sustainable. U.S. healthcare is doomed by its vast spiraling costs even after controlling for its supposedly higher quality. | | |
| ▲ | Muromec 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >Other places can only afford universal healthcare to begin with because their healthcare sector is not nearly as corrupt or shackled by a huge amount of government regulation that was only put in place here for self-serving reasons. coughs in Ukrainian | |
| ▲ | Noaidi 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > healthcare sector is not nearly as corrupt or shackled by a huge amount of government regulation Healthcare is not corrupt. Insurance companies are corrupt. And regulation is lacking in Health Insurance and enforcement is lacking in healthcare. (So many doctors that have committed malpractice just switch hospitals. > U.S. healthcare is doomed by its vast spiraling costs even after controlling for its supposedly higher quality. Healthcare costs are high because of insurance companies and private equity, not doctors and hospitals. So please stop with these right wing baby bird food regurgitation. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Healthcare is not corrupt. Insurance companies are corrupt. There’s a crazy amount of corruption in the healthcare space. Some of the medical fraud busts that come out every year have staggeringly large sums attached. In some areas there are still schemes that openly recruit poor people to use their information to bill for medical care that is not actually necessary or provided. It’s wild. > Healthcare costs are high because of insurance companies and private equity, not doctors and hospitals. Sorry, the world isn’t so simple that you can pick your villains (insurance companies and private equity) and declare everyone else to be free from blame. There’s a lot of bad behavior in these systems at every level. Yes, including some doctors. If we removed insurance overhead entirely, your healthcare costs wouldn’t change more than a few percent. It’s amazing that everyone united against insurance companies as the cause of high healthcare costs when they barely take a few percent of the overall spend. | |
| ▲ | jorvi 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Healthcare costs are high because of insurance companies and private equity, not doctors and hospitals. It is actually the opposite. UnitedHealth, one of the 'worst' insurers in terms of denials, has a profit margin of ~5% [0]. It is mainly the providers that overcharge, under the guise of "the less and lower we bill, the less and lower insurance pays us". Insurance only works if there is at least as much going into the pot as is going out. What do you think would happen if insurances weren't denial hawks? Get angry at your doctor for overcharging you whilst using insurance companies as the heel. [0] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/UNH/unitedhealth-g... | | |
| ▲ | lern_too_spel 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The reason UnitedHealth has such a low profit margin is that their profit margin is capped by the ACA's Medical Loss Ratio provision. They fraudulently get diagnoses for their insured patients to upcode and incur more charges to Medicare Advantage that they can collect their profit from. Any doctor could have told you this has been going on for years.
https://www.google.com/search?q=UnitedHealthmedicare+advanta... If the government were the insurer, it would not have the same incentives to commit this fraud. | |
| ▲ | Detrytus 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As a person who moved to US from Europe recently I can say that prices charged by US healthcare providers are ridiculous - all overpriced 10-20x compared to my home country. |
| |
| ▲ | zozbot234 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Healthcare is not corrupt. Insurance companies are corrupt. ¿Por qué no los dos? Guess what, it's a lot more likely that insurance companies will go corrupt if what they interact with - healthcare - is corrupt. > private equity, not doctors and hospitals. Guess what is limiting private equity's ability to compete amongst themselves in expanding the effective provision of healthcare and driving costs lower for the ultimate stakeholders i.e. patients? That's right: doctors, hospitals (including those that are nominally not-for-profit, but where the profits just turn into salary for those who can control that flow of money) and government regulation throughout the sector. |
|
| |
| ▲ | fellowniusmonk 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I can't think of any credible reason not to have universal healthcare at this point. Maybe 20 years ago but there is too much empirical data across multiple countries and environments now. Assuming our cost for care drops commiserate to what's been seen in other countries we could use the saving to increase merit scholarships for the contributing young as a introductory form of UBI. | | |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Strictly from a realpolitik standpoint, universal healthcare like the systems found in Europe is unlikely to happen because too much of the American economy is tied up in healthcare and healthcare services. People trying to improve the system here in the US would be better served by looking for a fix that's uniquely American (ACA, all-payer rates, public option, etc.), rather than trying to tear out what we have and replace it with universal healthcare. Mandatory disclaimer that I don't like our health insurance or healthcare prices any more than anybody else does, and in a perfect world I'd love to have universal healthcare instead. | |
| ▲ | scns 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I can't think of any credible reason not to have universal healthcare at this point. When you grab em by their Amygdala, the naked monkeys will do what you want. Even to their own detriment. As soon as they are in fight-or-flight-mode, (most) people cannot be reasoned with. Sad but true | | | |
| ▲ | giancarlostoro 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It sounds like a great idea, then a government shut down happens. | | |
| ▲ | throw0101a 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > It sounds like a great idea, then a government shut down happens. Single payer / universal healthcare ≠ doctors/nurses are government employees (necessarily). You go to your local health care provider, show your card, and received treatment. The single payer (government) then gets billed and money is transferred to the providers account. If the government is shutdown, there could be a delay in payment in outstanding bills, but that does not mean health care providers shutdown. Medicare ran during the last shutdown: * https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/government-shutdo... * Telehealth was: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/medicare-patients-go-wit... Social Security cheques went out too: * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/social-security-government-shut... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_gov... Lots of stuff can potentially be automated, and so continue to run. | | |
| ▲ | 9x39 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's possible for some of that to continue, but we really don't know what would happen if we directly connect payrolls and finances of the healthcare industry to the federal government in the US. It's a fair question how such a big connection would suffer when the government is punitively closed in a faustian bargain as part of a political struggle, as seems to be common recently. There might be a few top-down emergency provisions to ensure checks go out to keep the system from toppling, but I wouldn't work if my pay is frozen and neither would my plumber, electrician, lawyer, etc. The last few shutdowns have run over a month - that can easily exceed the cash reserves of most businesses (that would be providers) and large businesses would shutter or have layoffs before burning that much cash. We can't be so confident in how a $5T/year system would react if its primary cash flow valve is turned off, is all. Handwaving away the scope and complexity doesn't help anything. |
| |
| ▲ | PygmySurfer 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It sounds like a great idea, then a government shut down happens. How about fixing the government so it can’t be shut down because a few hundred politicians can’t agree on the next budget? | | |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > How about fixing the government so it can’t be shut down because a few hundred politicians can’t agree on the next budget? "Thanks I'm cured" material. You're not the first person to think of that, and the fact that it hasn't been done yet probably means it can't be done very easily. | |
| ▲ | t-3 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Neither party is interested in amending the Constitution, which would be necessary, and even if they were, the country is so deeply divided that it would likely be unsuccessful except maybe to knock a few inalienable rights off the list. |
| |
| ▲ | spease 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Just because the fed exists doesn’t mean the entire economy shuts down with the government. It depends on how it’s structured. | |
| ▲ | 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Or you could have universal healthcare. No, they could not have, based on the voting records of the previous 30 years of the federal US Congress. Even what they have passed only by the skin on their teeth. The only federal wealth redistribution policy in the US in my lifetime of almost 4 decades only had a 6 month window of passing in 2009. And half the population still hates it, and has worked and succeeded at gutting major parts of it. | |
| ▲ | christkv 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Even better you can have both like a lot of countries in Europe. The access to public healthcare also keeps the premium down. Extensive cover for a family of four is less than 200 in Spain a month out of pocket. | | |
| ▲ | cladopa 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Actually in Spain Social Security is 30 to 40% of what you earn. From the remainder 60% it is up to 50% in IRPF taxes, so you could pay 70% of what you earn. The trick is that Franco hid the social security tax in the company side so normal people don't see it, but it is there. Over that there is IBI for your house, there is IVA on anything you buy, and there are central bank inflation taxing anything you own in absolute terms. | | |
| ▲ | avadodin 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Europe always overcharging and underdelivering. I am forever thankful for the Socialism that allowed me to get a degree for $3k, though. The downside is of course over-enrollment but at least the bartenders didn't come out $50k into debt. I hear it is different now. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What surprises me - even after decades of wondering about this - is how rare the intrinsically motivated people are. |
|
|
| ▲ | preisschild 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Me. Got countless old servers as a teenager and self hosted as much as possible. Now I have enough money for new servers (well, besides memory...) but not enough time and energy. |
|
| ▲ | mistrial9 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How many went ChaosKlub and found themselves on the run? |
|
| ▲ | PlatoIsADisease 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why not start your own software company? I made big money in my 20s, I can retire. Now I just play and gamble on my company to go from ~2M to 100M. |
