
Wanted: ‘Lost Einsteins.’ Please Apply - dsr12
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/technology/talent-opportunity-gap-pioneer-fund.html
======
danicgross
(Pioneer founder here.)

Nat Friedman and I launched AI Grant last year
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851806](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851806)).
The idea was to give out money to promising AI researchers around the world.
To date, we've funded 50 researchers, from high school students in Hawaii to
aspiring researchers in Africa. We’ve been inspired by the fellows we’ve
funded all over the word. I’m following it with a new project called Pioneer.

Pioneer funds ambitious people around the world working on interesting
projects. Unlike YC, this is focused on small _projects_ , not companies. A
project could be anything -- open source work, research in physics or biology,
or creating art.

If one does start a company, Pioneer gets 3% of equity in it in return for the
network, community and guidance it provides. But it's by no means a
requirement or a goal. We're merely hoping the small fraction of companies
help us fund this experiment in perpetuity.

I think the largest gift we'll give our Pioneers isn't money. It'll be non-
intuitive things like a network of friends (other Pioneers), a forcing
function to get that thing done and mentorship from inspiring individuals.

Unlike other grant programs, we’re trying to do most of the screening in
software. Becoming a Pioneer requires winning the Pioneer Tournament -- a
(hopefully) fun and interactive application process. More on that on the site.

I'm passionate about this work because I'm the beneficiary of a similar
system. I wrote about my story here, if you're curious:
[https://pioneer.app/blog/hello](https://pioneer.app/blog/hello).

I read HN daily. And I've lost a lot of sleep about how this comments section
will react to Pioneer :)

I'm hoping you'll find this at least a worthwhile experiment to run. Do let me
know what ideas or feedback you have!

P.S. This effort is unrelated to YC. If you have any complaints about it,
shoot me, not them!

P.P.S. Nat remains a close friend to Pioneer but his focus is on GitHub. AI
Grant will continue to run as a non-profit. More details on that soon.

~~~
telospolis
"We expect a fraction of Pioneers to start companies. In exchange for the
investment and benefits below, Pioneer will retain 3% of any company you found
over the next eight years. Pioneer will also have the option of investing an
additional $20,000 for 5% in any of those companies. These conditions apply if
you already have an incorporated company."

yeah, as an outsider looking for entry into startup - it just doesn't seem
right! i get the fact that you guys have to fund the company some way! but it
just seems too costly. i would be short selling myself.

~~~
danicgross
If you have the opportunity to join other programs, go for it! Our hope is
that this model enables us to reach the billions of people that are outside
the network of Silicon Valley. They might not even be sure if they have a
"company". They just want support on whatever project they're pursuing.

We're hoping that becoming a Pioneer vastly increases the odds that you turn
your "shower-thought" into something real, even if it takes a few years to
mature.

We're going to be making bets on folks substantially before they have the
indicia of success that investors screen for. Before anyone could even say
"This person will someday found a company." The math for this to be
sustainable requires that the equity slice be higher than someone would ask
for if they knew 100% of their investments were in high-potential companies.

~~~
FLUX-YOU
This is a chicken-egg scenario:

1) I'd be less apprehensive about giving away 8% to any (!) company I found if
I knew the network/guidance/community were proven.

2) You need track records of success before the network/guidance/community is
seen as worth it. Right now, it's a gamble since you're new.

So you need a population of people willing to take a lower amount of money
with a gamble on community quality.

Given that, it seems better off to wait.

~~~
harigov
If you are able to think through this, this fund is not for you. As mentioned
in OP's comment, they are targeting folks who aren't even sure if they are
building a company, just based on their 'potential'. It is a risky endeavor
and from that perspective, the equity portion is justified. For someone who
has access to this advice and support, it's not worth it. But for those who
don't, this is Godsent.

------
opportune
I really like the idea behind this, but I take issue with the fact that if
someone does start a company, Pioneer will take 3% with the option of buying
5% more of the company for $20,000. That seems pretty unfair.

I would be inclined to participate if this term didn't exist, or if it were
either more financially generous or took less equity. But I wouldn't want to
develop any idea through Pioneer if any future idea (for the next 8 years)
could be poached for so little. It almost strikes me as a lazy way of running
a semi-accelerator. I do think it's great that you're giving $5000 grants to
help people develop projects and themselves, but this seems to
disproportionately penalize people who want to commercialize their current or
any future ideas

(Edit: why was my comment moved from being the top reply to the danicgross
comment to a reply to the top level article?)

~~~
danicgross
I agree and I disagree.

I agree if you're a Silicon Valley tech entrepreneur who knows they can raise
a seed round together. If that's you, you shouldn't take our offer. Raise the
seed round; you'll get great terms.

There are about 7.4 billion people who aren't Silicon Valley tech
entrepreneurs. Most of them do not have a convenient line to investors,
because investors don't happily fund writing the next great American novel,
working on a demo tape, trying to prototype out an undergraduate research
paper, or running companies in their neck of the woods. Pioneer could
potentially fund all of those things.

We're going to be making bets on folks substantially before they have the
indicia of success that investors screen for... substantially before anyone
could even say "This person will someday found a company." The math for this
to be sustainable requires that the equity slice be higher than someone would
ask for if they knew 100% of their investments were in high-potential
companies.

~~~
kxyvr
I think there are a couple of reasons for the reactions here:

1\. By using Einstein's name in your marketing, you're using the name of a
scientist who worked for a university whose ostensible mission is to create
and disseminate knowledge for the public good. By contrast, you're seem to be
running a small investment firm.

2\. If we accept that you're looking to make a financial investment in a
company, the amount of money that you're offering is astoundingly low given
the terms that you propose. Yes, if someone doesn't like your offer, they
don't have to accept it. However, at the same time, you seem to be targeting
people who don't know how to obtain their own money, which suggests young and
naive. From that perspective, your investment seems exploitative.

Candidly, from my own personal opinion, these sort of arraignments are not OK.
Learning to run a business is hard, but in my opinion, ultimately rewarding.
Offers like these attempt to normalize a behavior that experienced business
people would scoff at. Unfortunately, $5k is not going to pay many bills. If
I'm in a position to take advantage of the networking that you imply, that
means that I already need to have enough money to support myself until the
business gets off the ground. If I have that much money laying around, then
I'm already a good position to make a go at business and giving up that much
equity is exploitative.

Further, there are details implied in the offer that are generally not good
for a new business. Equity means I need to have shares, which probably means
an S-corp or a C-corp. Most starting businesses should probably file as a
sole-proprietorship (as an LLC or not) because the accounting is vastly
easier, which means cheaper. How does your arrangement work if someone has a
business structure with no shares?

In case someone else asks how to get money for a new business if not for
programs like this: There are others depending on where you live. In the U.S.,
both government SBIR and STTR grants are, in my opinion, good sources of money
and don't require equity. A phase-1 grant gives about $80-100k, phase-2
$400-500k, phase-3 low millions. In Norway, I've seen good things from
Innovasjon Norge.

Certainly, I appreciate when people try to help others learn business. It just
seems like this strategy isn't it.

------
z0a
This just looks like another VC firm disguised as something else:

1) 3% equity + 5% for an additional 20k of any company you found for the next
8 years

2) “The candidates will vote on each other’s projects, points will be awarded
and there will be leader board. Subject experts will also vote, with their
votes counting somewhat more than the candidates.”

I think what we actually need are less gatekeepers and instead work towards
establishing communities that reward intellectual curiosity, encouraging the
cultivation of ideas and potential businesses that provide value. We have to
support this sort of development for those willing to apply themselves, and
that means we should be there to help during all phases of that journey — not
just when someone has a project idea or when they’re ready to IPO, but also
when they may be educating themselves, researching areas of interest, or even
when they may be going through a time of intellectual hardship.

This sort of work must be genuine and unconditional — the current VC model is
flawed by design if you wish to “address the opportunity gap” — it will always
be about maximizing ROI even if it’s not explicitly stated.

~~~
danicgross
> This just looks like another VC firm

I don't think VC firms fund poets or musicians :)

> communities that reward intellectual curiosity, encouraging the cultivation
> of ideas and potential businesses that provide value.

I agree! That's exactly what's we're trying to do. I think _most_ people we
fund will never start companies. I hope they'll become great researchers,
civic activists or artists. For the fraction that do, I hope we'll be
significant enough of a needle mover in moving them _as a person_ from idea to
product that we'll deserve the small amount of equity we ask for.

~~~
mehblahwhatevs
> I don't think VC firms fund poets or musicians :)

How would you fund a poet or musician in your funding model?

Do they put an idea for a song or some such on the board and it's voted on?
Who decides what poet is good or bad (it's entirely subjective?)

Also what's the payout for investment in a poet? They aren't likely to start a
company.

So if I'm going to start a company and I take your investment is it "fair"
that a poet receives the same investment but doesn't have to fork over a %
back to you like I'll have to?

------
_bxg1
"Candidates will submit their project ideas. Each week, the projects will be
updated. The candidates will vote on each other’s projects, points will be
awarded and there will be leader board."

I like the stated mission, but this approach concerns me. Silicon Valley has
ingrained in our shared consciousness the idea that genius or potential for
societal contribution == creativity == (usually) a business or project. Having
a thing you want to _make_ and then _problem-solving_ a way to get there.
There's nothing wrong with that approach, but it's one of many, and for an
organization that's claiming to seek out all flavors of human potential, it's
extremely limiting.

Many - possibly most - of the world's greatest thinkers didn't have a
"project", or at least that wasn't their primary activity. They didn't follow
the model of

1\. Have an idea

2\. Execute on it

They lived, experienced, researched, contemplated, discussed, expressed. The
literal "Einsteins" \- the rockstar intellectuals who made it all the way into
the popular consciousness - might have had a single big creation that made
them famous. But they didn't set out from the beginning with that vision, and
they make up a minority of the world's successful geniuses.

------
lev99
Pioneers offer: [https://pioneer.app/offer](https://pioneer.app/offer)

> Pioneer will retain 3% of any company you found over the next eight years.
> Pioneer will also have the option of investing an additional $20,000 for 5%
> in any of those companies.

3% of all companies founded over eight years is a very big ask.

~~~
eatbitseveryday
They also write at the bottom: "You are not obligated to accept this offer if
you’re a Pioneer Tournament winner."

------
leoc
The Pioneer Fund? Unfortunate choice of name there!
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund)

~~~
zedderled
oo ouch.

------
yc-kraln
Looks good; how do you handle the fact that most 'lost einsteins' are working
a crushing 9-5 and don't have the time or capacity to conceptualize (let alone
work on) their passion projects?

~~~
s-shellfish
Maybe just trying to attract a certain type of person who wants to get out of
a job they find crushing.

A job can be seen as crushing or a team effort. Einstein wasn't an island.

~~~
bamboo_7
Get out of their job for $5k? I agree I may be used to an area with a higher
cost of living, but folks don't win $5k on Wheel of Fortune and think "now I
can finally pursue my dream of becoming a poet."

~~~
s-shellfish
I imagine people are just trying to help.

------
fishtoaster
That's super interesting. I'm torn between thinking the terms of this deal are
clever and thinking they're usurious.

Putting that aside for a moment, though, this seems like a pre-accelerator.
Traditional startup accelerators invest like vcs, but earlier and with worse
terms. This company invests like an accelerator, but earlier (before the
company's even started) and with worse terms. It invests in people years
before they even start their business.

It's a people accelerator. They say they'll fund musicians + artists, which is
interesting because those people aren't super likely to go on to found
venture-friendly businesses. My guess is that those people are funded in order
to provide a better + more creative environment for the people who are more
likely to go on to start a company. And probably also some amount of
marketing: a collection of geniuses of all ilks sounds like more fun to hang
out with than just a bunch of pre-seed startup founders.

------
medius
This may have some use, but the use of "Lost Einsteins" is so strange to me. I
went to read the article thinking they will help educate unprivileged
population, improve accessibility of knowledge, etc. But this is just another
variation of a startup accelerator.

Can even real Einstein find this useful? How long can they support him while
he works on his theories with no company/product to show? Do they have a
system to find and support a Ramanujan? How many people will vote for his
"projects"?

I really don't mean to discourage the founders. They got NYT to write about
their them. Maybe it's NYT's fault. But using Einstein and such to market
their company/fund is too over the top and only comes out as click-baity.

~~~
glup
Similar sentiments here. This is a venture fund that sees individuals, rather
than companies, as ventures. Not sure if that's a good idea, my gut feeling is
that it isn't. But in any case it isn't finding "lost Einsteins" for society,
it's finding returns for capital.

------
pastor_elm
>Talented people suffer — one study called them “lost Einsteins” — but so does
the economy from the loss of ideas and wealth they could have produced.

The irony is that Einstein himself was 'lost,' having failed to find a
teaching post and forced to work in a patent office. And many contend it was
only because he had the time and freedom to contemplate on his own that we
able to put forth such revolutionary ideas. If only he could have been
indebted to some VC firm instead. He could have made them millions!

~~~
sras-me
> he had the time and freedom to contemplate on his own

Such an under rated aspect of human existence. It has given us so much, but
somehow managed to remain invisible that when something rob us of it, we don't
have a clue how enormous of a thing we are losing...

------
jmull
This doesn't feel right to me.

A survivor-style tournament. 8% of any company you start for eight years (3% +
5% more for almost nothing).

Eight years is a long time, especially at the age the participants will be
(presumably). I don't think most participants will have the perspective to
properly evaluate an eight-year commitment like that.

Meanwhile, the benefits are between $0 and around $10K for participants,
depending on how they do in the survivor game.

I suspect most potential participants will be able to find a better expected
value elsewhere.

------
cm2012
The detractor's here are completely nuts. Most people, even Americans, can't
even dream of $5000 that only expects repayment if the business is very
successful. "Seed rounds" are basically a top 3 city only type thing.

~~~
ameister14
I'm not sure they're completely nuts - if you set out looking for exceptional
people, then you are already not talking about 'most people.' 3% for $5,000
and an option of total 8% for $25,000 seems a bit steep to me, especially over
an eight year period. Let's say I start two companies over an eight year
period. That's 3% of each now for $2500 initially per company and the option
of an additional 5% in both or one for $20,000 per.

I don't want to shit on this because I think it is coming from a good place,
but this sounds to me like the Thiel Fellowship meets YC with worse terms, at
least as it applies to people building companies. It may make sense for poets
and artists, but I also notice that none of the founders are artists, and
while Hollis Robbins is awesome, it might not be able to accelerate an
artist's career in the same way it could a founder's.

------
heroprotagonist
I thought on this more, and similar short-term rewards should be achievable
without requiring people to give up any portion of future ownership stake in
any business they start.

Charge a membership fee. If the payout beyond server and development costs is
$5k a month, that's 200 people paying $25/month.

That's a bit high, but membership fee can be reduced as number of members
scales. Or, alternately, the membership fee can be reduced from beginning
(perhaps even optional, with some extra reward for people who pay) and the
monthly competition reward can be increased as membership scales.

The ideas will flow. The selection process will hopefully draw attention to
best projects (though perhaps there needs to be some criteria round who can
vote, such as requirement to contribute in some manner to vote). The prize
will get them their ticket, and the recognition of winning the prize can earn
them the contacts.

There is no need for a permanent ownership stake in the users' future
businesses. It could potentially be financially profitable on its own (though
not spectacularly so).

The intangible benefit of being able to introduce yourself to these
interesting people, and of being able to introduce the interesting people to
others who are looking for a specific sort of interesting person, is not very
calculable. But it would probably make the endeavor worthwhile in its own
right, without closing yourself off to audiences that are turned away by the
terms.

You can still invest your $5k/month into someone, and the winner of the
contest still gets their prize, but it's on more mutually beneficial terms for
everyone.

------
Zenst
We often hear that may scientific advances happened as a byproduct of wars,
could it be that in such times, patents become less of a priority or
restraint.

Which brings me to the question - If Einstein was alive today, how would he
fair in a World more curtailed by patent trolls and over-zealous application.

That in itself makes you wonder, what constraints do we have today that was
less of a restriction in Einstein's times.

~~~
sras-me
>what constraints do we have today that was less of a restriction in
Einstein's times.

Facebook/Reddit/Hackernews will do more harm before any patent troll can hope
to intervene. Because they prevent the very forming of ideas by their
"perpetual distraction" and "fear of missing out" aspects..

------
yinyinwu
Lots comments are focused on the funding structure, and that misses the point.
Pioneer takes the risk in funding early projects not companies. They
explicitly call out that they will invest in researchers or artists who aren't
sure whether they want to start a company.

If you can raise funding through traditional VC channels, go for it. If you're
a researcher in Iowa with a new physics idea, Pioneer is a better than a
government grant.

The average size of an NIH grant in 2015 was under $500k. And that amount is
intended to support the project expenses, not just the researcher. A close
friend of mine is a physician at Stanford. She received a prestigious NIH
grant. The grant amount to fund herself was $50k...in the bay area. This is
common in academia.

Congrats on launching! Hope you guys are successful.

------
GuiA
Brian Eno:

 _" I was an art student and, like all art students, I was encouraged to
believe that there were a few great figures like Picasso and Kandinsky,
Rembrandt and Giotto and so on who sort-of appeared out of nowhere and
produced artistic revolution.

As I looked at art more and more, I discovered that that wasn’t really a true
picture.

What really happened was that there was sometimes very fertile scenes
involving lots and lots of people – some of them artists, some of them
collectors, some of them curators, thinkers, theorists, people who were
fashionable and knew what the hip things were – all sorts of people who
created a kind of ecology of talent. And out of that ecology arose some
wonderful work.

The period that I was particularly interested in, ’round about the Russian
revolution, shows this extremely well. So I thought that originally those few
individuals who’d survived in history – in the sort-of “Great Man” theory of
history – they were called “geniuses”. But what I thought was interesting was
the fact that they all came out of a scene that was very fertile and very
intelligent.

So I came up with this word “scenius” – and scenius is the intelligence of a
whole... operation or group of people. And I think that’s a more useful way to
think about culture, actually. I think that – let’s forget the idea of
“genius” for a little while, let’s think about the whole ecology of ideas that
give rise to good new thoughts and good new work."_

Trying to find and fund "high potential people" falls in line with Silicon
Valley's narrative of the genius founder, lone brilliant hacker, etc. Perhaps
not too surprising, as many behind such initiatives would likely consider
themselves to be such "high potential people", and thus have some interest in
perpetuating that narrative.

If the goal is truly _" to put more science and less happenstance into the
process of talent discovery"_, then perhaps investing in the "scene" would be
more apt, rather than trying to target some "high potential individuals" based
on vague, often highly subjective metrics that often end up being "does this
teenager remind me of myself/people I like" (typically, the approach described
in the article - a tournament based on voting - essentially sounds like a
popularity contest).

I've also taught a lot (many thousands) of teenagers over the past decade.
I've witnessed plenty of "high potential people" \- those who taught
themselves CAD, electrical engineering, organic chemistry, etc. and who
weren't afraid to email Stanford professors out of the blue. Those usually do
fine, especially because there are so many programs targeted to students like
them. They also tend to have one thing in common - a very supportive, stable
home environment. The problem that's more interesting, and much tougher, to
solve is the long tail. The students who have to pick up their siblings after
school and cook for them because they have one parent working several jobs to
pay the bills, etc.

When you start to peel those layers, you realize that really, most if not all
students are "high potential" in one way or another. A problem is that "high
potential" in this context really means "high potential of giving a good
return on investment to the venture capitalists/companies/investors seeking
them out".

~~~
PascLeRasc
We desperately need universal basic income.

~~~
starlingforge
Yeah this is what I am thinking reading this. This raw deal would look
unattractive to any intelligent person if a UBI was in place to incubate
people at the stage this project proposes to attract them.

------
heroprotagonist
I really like the idea of sharing the project and getting feedback from
community, the accountability of regular updates, and the voting system.

But I don't like the equity split. And I don't need investment. I don't
particularly want to become a 'Pioneer' with access to the exclusive forum if
I win the popularity competition, and I don't need a ticket to Silicon Valley.

Is there a way to join the website without commitment to future equity split?
For example, it might be restricted to a section which is always outside the
'exclusive' are for winners who become Pioneers.

But it'd be cool to post my project and post regular updates, then have people
follow, vote and comment on it on a regular basis to track the progress. Even
if they are not experts and are simply other people on similar paths.

~~~
jkeat
There's a community called Work in Progress that's kind of like what you
describe: [http://wip.chat/](http://wip.chat/)

Note: $20/mo subscription

~~~
heroprotagonist
Oh wow.. I literally just described something similar in a follow-up comment
as a theoretically better approach.

Thanks for this.

------
mendeza
Exciting to see this! I can attest to how programs like this can be so
impactful. I attended a summer research program during my undergrad called the
MIT Summer Research program, and it changed my life. The program enabled me to
work and get connected with some of the most brilliant professors and
researchers in the world. I worked at the MIT Media Lab, where it instilled my
passion for Augmented Reality and software engineering. I leveraged that
internship to get letters of recommendations, which enabled me to be accepted
to an Ivy league school for graduate school, a dream that I didn't think was
possible for me.

------
need_more_pr
Choosing a name that, inevitably, will have you informally referred-to--and
thus known as--"the Pioneer fund" seems profoundly unwise.

I suggest deepening your expertise in branding and PR.

~~~
ProAm
Maybe the network he has available to him could have helped? /s

It is unfortunate there are two funds already with essentially the same name

------
frakkingcylons
Interesting idea, I like that Pioneer is looking for more than just startups
(or tech in general). Obviously the $5k grant is too small to make this
appealing for people in the U.S. who need money to pursue their ideas. BUT, of
course, there's the entire rest of the world, where $5k can be stretched quite
far.

One hang up - is it necessary to say that Pioneer seeks "young" people? Does
Pioneer have a preference for young people when determining who deserves an
offer?

------
adreamingsoul
I don’t see how this really helps ”Lost Einsteins”. That phrase in itself
seems odd. In my opinion, ”Lost Founders” seems more appropriate.

I would like to believe that any person who has similar traits to Einstein
would be driven to push forward their project, research, art, or idea
regardless if they did or didn’t qualify or succeed through this program.

------
user5994461
The fund name is misleading. Pioneer is a major multinational company in
consumer electronics, that is publicly traded.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Corporation)

~~~
bookofjoe
Worse than misleading. From Wikipedia: "Pioneer Fund is an American non-profit
foundation established in 1937 'to advance the scientific study of heredity
and human differences." The organization has been described as racist and
'white supremacist' in nature,[1][2][3] and as a hate group by the Southern
Poverty Law Center.[4]."

------
adamb
Hi @danicgross, glad to see you're iterating in this space! :)

It feels like your comment about the network and community being the most
valuable part of program is probably right. Given that, is it possible to be a
Pioneer, but _not_ accept the money?

------
pitt1980
interesting idea

will the general public get to see submissions in the tournament?

The bottlenecks around finding 'Lost Einsteins' (LEs) is an interesting
problem

You have to make yourself known to potential LEs (NYTs & HN seems like good
but not comprehensive start)

You have to have them make the connection that, yeah, they're the type of
person you're looking for (difficulty unclear)

You have to make an offer that compels them to act

Once they act, you need a process for filtering them from the people you're
not interested in having in your program

\--------

idk, good luck

------
dumby_bunny
For profit initiatives masked as for good initiatives like these are strictly
for useless people with nothing to contribute and no drive to create

------
adventured
_Everyone_ can find 15-20 hours per week. It's a matter of priorities and
choices.

A 9-5 job is going to take up 50-60 hours per week, including prep time and
travel (possibly less or more in some scenarios). 50 hours for sleep. That
leaves a very solid 50-60 hours per week, that is left to allocation by
priority (some will go to food, life maintenance, etc. - that all has a blend
of choice and priority to it).

How can you not shave off 15-20 hours per week out of those 50-60?

Pursuing something like this should be assumed to be difficult and brutal. The
world will fight you (the world, made up of people, does not like change),
people close to you will reject your efforts (you'll be lucky if 5% of the
people close to you are openly supportive) and you will suffer. A world filled
with a crab mentality will try to kill what you're doing. Conform, give in,
give up, quit, stay in your miserable 9 to 5 that you don't like, be one of
us. It's part of the deal: you will have to suffer immensely for what you
want, in most cases. If you want it, you have to absorb that.

So how do you handle it? You must want the thing you're pursuing more than the
pain it's inevitably going to entail.

Steve Jobs has one of the great quotes on this matter, from the D5 conference
in 2007 (say what you will about him, he plainly understood what he's talking
about on this subject):

"People say you have to have a lot of passion for what you’re doing and it’s
totally true. And the reason is because it’s so hard that if you don’t, any
rational person would give up. It’s really hard. And you have to do it over a
sustained period of time. So if you don’t love it, if you’re not having fun
doing it, you don’t really love it, you’re going to give up. And that’s what
happens to most people, actually. If you really look at the ones that ended up
being “successful” in the eyes of the society and the ones that didn’t,
oftentimes it’s the ones [who] were successful loved what they did, so they
could persevere when it got really tough. And the ones that didn’t love it
quit because they’re sane, right? Who would want to put up with this stuff if
you don’t love it? So it’s a lot of hard work and it’s a lot of worrying
constantly and if you don’t love it, you’re going to fail."

~~~
tpfour
> Everyone can find 15-20 hours per week. It's a matter of priorities and
> choices.

Do you have children?

~~~
Jyaif
Even if you have children (which is a choice btw), it's still a matter of
priorities and choice.

~~~
tpfour
It is, but that is not a particularly fruitful avenue of thought for the
problem at hand.

I could annoyingly argue that OP and yourself choose not to each dedicate 20
hours more per week to work for even more money, money that you will send me
so that I can work less at my day job and work on more interesting projects.
But you can't do that because you have made other choices etc. It's a bit
circular isn't it?

------
dumby_bunny
so dumb

------
memebox3v
You want me to give you my best ideas? Lol, no. I can create them myself
thanks.

------
myWindoonn
No.

As idlewords has pointed out, many smart folks seem to subsist on sorrow,
video games, and cannabis, while working a loser's job and trying to keep from
going under. This isn't coincidence.

Existence has quite a lot of suffering. For some of us, we want to get out of
the way, stop being part of the problem, and find ways to positively
contribute to society. These folks offer a path to getting in the middle of
things, make more problems, and make a pile of money for all involved.

No.

~~~
DKnoll
I think you're confusing misanthropy with genius.

