Ditto. I googled around and the gist of candle physics is this:
-wick is lit and then heat travels downward to the candle
-immediately begins melting the wax, which are hydrocarbons that fuel the fire. it's a simple combustion reaction as they mix with oxygen in the high heat
-capillary action sends melted hydrocarbons up the wick, continuing the reaction
No mention of energy loss when lighting another candle... but really heat is the byproduct of the combustion reaction, so lighting another candle is harnessing the byproduct and doesn't interfering the reaction. The expression is valid! :-P
I thought it would be about teaching costing nothing to the educated or something along those lines, and trying to visualize how a rebuttal about the trade-off in time spent could apply to the candle simile.
Come to think of it I don't see how the positive people were similar to the candles — that simile is about making use of the positivity in your life, while the blog is about either the benefits of finding and reciprocating the positiveness in others (the candles don't choose to be lit in the first place) or reducing interaction with negative influences (the receiving candle can't choose to surround themselves with lit candles). I don't believe the simile really works with either, even though it's a nice image.
The author rightfully acknowledges that "it is a decision that cost me some short term profits early on".
But I also know people and companies that were so nice and generous that people and customers learned to bleed them to figurative death. It's worth noting there might be some survivorship bias here.
Unfortunately these tend to be woven into tales of incompetence and failure, not being too nice. That's the bias.
When you open your house to a haggard stranger (as my in-laws did) and they turn out to be fugitive that robs them (as their guest did), they were praised for their empathy but blamed for their naievity, and never made whole.
In the corporate sphere this story appears as an abrupt shutdown when customers refuse to pay for the thing they have been accustomed to getting for free. In open source it looks like a popular project being abandoned because the maintainer has to grind elsewhere to pay the bills.
You generally won't read feel-good blog posts about these. Once again, that's the bias.
I think it's possible to have a shared joy and curiosity without giving anything away.
Heck, I would argue that learning how to say "no" in a way that's honest but isn't abrasive is a skill that's critical for any person that works in a team. I'm not talking about empty platitudes, usually earnest transparency works really well.
actually usually when I light 2 candles you have to tip one and so it burns more to a side and then they burn extra hot for a second so you do actually lose some.
It definitely is. It's a more thoughtfully written "haters gonna hate" status post.
That said, I do sympathize with her for the things she talks about having experienced. I'm not even successful by HN's standards, just a CS grad working their way up the tech ladder in some decent companies, but every time I've experienced any level of success along the way I've always been met with petty resentment from not just peers but some I, at times, thought of as friends. Some people are just bizarre.
> He told me that that was pretty easy, boring work, but I guess good enough to pay the bills.
I've been told a lot in my side projects a similar thing: that the problem I solved wasn't the "valuable" one to solve, and that other people were far ahead in the "real" problem. It drives me absolutely insane. People diminish the success of others just so their project can be "superior," despite when it's actually far behind in the department that one excels at.
I understand the reasoning but sometimes I caught myself in the dilemma if I told the person that they is wasting their time in this stupid project. I mean, I respect the person wits, but this particular project is bad. If it was me, I would like a honest opinion, so I don't know what's really right.
Realize that your opinion and ability to predict market actions is completely unfounded.
Whatever they're working on is like research. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. If you tell them it won't work (and you lack any relevant experience), they don't have a reason to believe you and neither do you frankly.
That's how I deal with it. I say to myself, who am I to judge?
Yes, I completely agree with you, but it's a feedback anyway, more data points to consider. I would be glad to hear the negative feedback even if in my mind I say that is BS*. Maybe there are points that I didn't consider before.
People generally want to be high status, and status is relative, so a way of propping your own status is to diminish the status of others. For some it's a need, like a fish with one fin trying desperately to stay afloat. I've met a handful of people like that, and I couldn't stand to hang around them very long, but a few people get along with them quite well, I suppose by buying into their version of reality.
I hate to admit it, but I fall into the resentment camp. I don't belittle others, but I do envy their success. I know this attitude is counterproductive, but that doesn't motivate me to change. I suppose this is one of the many reasons the author is successful, and I am not.
Oh the resentment is perfectly natural, but it's pretty easy to overcome. It's like skipping the third beer or not buying the chocolate bar when you walk past it.
One of the best ways to heal this aspect of yourself is to actually expand the feelings of resentment in a safe therapeutic setting (possibly with a psychedelic or equivalent, i.e. Breathwork) and to get to the root of where your sense of survival was threatened by another's success.
This is quite common in the current us school system where children are routinely pitted against one another for the love of a proxy parent, aka teacher.
I think you are dead on that about the similarity between these different things. But such temptations are not easy to overcome. Or at least just about everyone will have a weakeness for some such thing, and if yours happens to be resentment -- then it will be hard to get over.
But you rinsight is still valuable: if you have difficulty getting over something, then remind yourself that you are being a like a drunk.
At least you are aware of this. What's worse is dealing with someone resentful that isn't aware of their toxic behavior... you can change, nobody's perfect.
Devil's Advocate on that: if you pursue something out of envy, it's very unlikely you're going to enjoy it nearly as much as anticipated, after acquisition.
There's a difference between pursuing what you want independent of particular concern for what others have, and pursuing something because someone else has it. The end result upon acquisition is entirely different. It's similar to fame or prestige in that sense, which are given to you by other people's often fleeting opinions, and are frequently torturous accordingly to the extent one cares about such.
> ...I do envy their success. I know this attitude is counterproductive...
I don't think it's necessarily counterproductive.
Of course an all-consuming envy isn't good, but I think some degree of envy is human nature and not a big deal as long as you don't take it too seriously.
It can have an upside, if it becomes fuel to push yourself to work harder.
I have a little brother and a brother in law who each went from bad financial situations to making a lot of money in a relatively short time. By a lot I mean much more than I make, and I do pretty well. I found it strange that I was both happy for them and resentful at the same time. We got along well before and after their success and I never felt like they became arrogant or condescending. I think my resentment came from having to face up to my own mistakes and weaknesses. Maybe there were reasons they were more successful than I was; that it wasn't just luck. Thankfully the resentment has long since faded.
The experience also made me think what would happen if you were at a party with a large group of friends. God appears and gives everyone with a birthday on an odd numbered day a million dollars then leaves with no explanation. How happy for their friends are the people who didn't get anything? They are no worse off but I can't help thinking they would be happy.
Strictly from a selfish perspective, it's in your best interest to have rich friends and family, rather than poor friends and family... even if your own personal economic status is the same in both circumstances.
Strictly speaking, the purchasing power of those millionaire party people would be increasing, while your purchasing power would not. So, you might expect to be outcompeted for goods and services as well as for costs to rise.
On the other hand, if we could tax the God-windfall at a high rate, then we could put those dollars toward social services and helping the most vulnerable members of society. :-)
If you fall into the resentment camp, you are exhibiting a defensive reaction because you are in denial about your own flaws and that will be a hindrance to your success.
The issue is social signals. "Resentment" is perfectly natural, and is a result of social status posturing. Party A views Party B as socially competitive and the result is discomfort, an attempt to pull B back towards the status quo or block them from succeeding, and of course, resentment.
I think the "lighting another candle" group are naturally wired more pragmatically; they're confident enough (or otherwise differently programmed) so that they don't feel socially competitive, and instead focus on growth. They focus on complementary aspects of Party B's success and act within reasonable social contexts to help propel Party B forward, understanding that if they're able to play a role in doing so, they'll likely be rewarded (be it financially, socially or otherwise).
I would posit that Silicon Valley can only exist because of a surplus of the latter category; it's the underpinning of VC as an industry, and business development as a branch of a corporation. In fact, it's downright dangerous for an investor to be socially competitive with founders - if you're expecting power law returns, you, by definition, have to invest in somebody that's likely going to end up more individually successful than you are and it's your job to make sure they get there.
All that said, there's definitely grey area. I'm sure that the "pragmatic" / "candle" group can still easily succumb to envy when the party they're interfacing with is quite literally competitive in a vertical they're operating in. None of us are perfect, so I think creating a delineation is a little dangerous. In-group vs. out-group thinking is only going to increase the social resentment factors (we can see it in this thread already).
Long-term that's true ... but just like you can make a fire go out by putting too much fuel on it too early, if you try to light too large a candle, the candle might go out.
I know this isn't related to the article, but I'm also surprised that the author had never worked with the trace given that they work in graphics, their company is called Binomial, and their product is called Basis.
This was so beautiful! So glad to see it on Hacker News. I find myself in the resentment camp too often, and I'm reminded that little can be accomplished by pushing others down. We're all stronger when we form a web of support. Greater heights can be reached.
I've seen this in employers as well. I worked for a textile mill that was technologically stuck in the Stone age, drilled you all day long for nearly minimum wage. Then I got a break and they made me a line lead, a reward for being such a good worker. But they found a way to take that position away when they found out I was using the extra money to pay for college courses and attend conferences. Needless to say, I quit, and I found a job at a technology-oriented company. They supported it from day one, and I'd be happy to stay with them and apply for more effective jobs.
I'm established now. I own a great company. I love my work and have happy customers and supportive people in my life. So I can see straight through the resentment for what it is...
It's likely enough the author is observing something real in at least some cases, but it's laughable to imagine that perspective and deep insights into the minds of others (i.e., empathy) comes with success and comfort. All evidence is that the opposite is true. It's not farfetched to suppose that he sometimes reads something else (like frustration) as resentment.
Some people resent people that find success in modest startups. Selling useful libraries to developers won't make you a billionaire, but it can create a comfortable, steady revenue stream-- RAD game tools (in Seattle) has been doing this for a long time, selling things like video codecs and profilers and animation systems.
You could write a basic version of these tools in a few months, so it's easy for some programmers to dismiss-- but companies can do basic math, and understand that a $5,000 licensing fee is much cheaper than 3 months of developer time!
I agree with the author that we should avoid feelings of resentment towards people who are successful. However it bothers me that the author classifies trace of a matrix as math trivia. I think sometimes people will categorize their current knowledge as "the important stuff", and everything else is "just trivia". This can be a dangerous trap that prevents personal improvement.
You might have misread or misinterpreted the opening paragraph. I don't see where the author classifies the trace of a matrix as trivia, though she does refer to some linear algebra concepts as "basic".
I get what you are saying, but my impression was that she wasn't dismissing unknown knowledge as intrinsically trivia, just the use of it in a certain context. When you use knowledge as a status marker, it becomes trivia -- because it isn't related to the application of such knowledge.
In the case laid out in the OP, it is a little subtle, but it's really about status games, not the knowledge itself. Otherwise he wouldn't need to make someone feel like shit for not knowing (or remembering) the term.
For example, I will readily admit I had to look it up because I don't use the term often -- I remembered learning it, and vaguely that it was related to the diagonal/determinant, but that was about it. That doesn't make it trivia, but it doesn't make me an idiot either.
So, it's not trivia if one needs to use it, but that's not how the protagonist in the essay used it. You can imagine how differently things would have gone if he kept his judgement to himself, had sharing information as the real goal, and simply explained what the trace was in the context of the conversation without the putdown. It wouldn't be trivia in that context, because it would be relevant to a useful conversation -- not a status cudgel.
76 comments
[ 0.31 ms ] story [ 148 ms ] threadBut I like the sentiment :)
No mention of energy loss when lighting another candle... but really heat is the byproduct of the combustion reaction, so lighting another candle is harnessing the byproduct and doesn't interfering the reaction. The expression is valid! :-P
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/candles.html
http://candles.org/candle-science/
Come to think of it I don't see how the positive people were similar to the candles — that simile is about making use of the positivity in your life, while the blog is about either the benefits of finding and reciprocating the positiveness in others (the candles don't choose to be lit in the first place) or reducing interaction with negative influences (the receiving candle can't choose to surround themselves with lit candles). I don't believe the simile really works with either, even though it's a nice image.
But I also know people and companies that were so nice and generous that people and customers learned to bleed them to figurative death. It's worth noting there might be some survivorship bias here.
Are there examples an average person might've heard of?
When you open your house to a haggard stranger (as my in-laws did) and they turn out to be fugitive that robs them (as their guest did), they were praised for their empathy but blamed for their naievity, and never made whole.
In the corporate sphere this story appears as an abrupt shutdown when customers refuse to pay for the thing they have been accustomed to getting for free. In open source it looks like a popular project being abandoned because the maintainer has to grind elsewhere to pay the bills.
You generally won't read feel-good blog posts about these. Once again, that's the bias.
Heck, I would argue that learning how to say "no" in a way that's honest but isn't abrasive is a skill that's critical for any person that works in a team. I'm not talking about empty platitudes, usually earnest transparency works really well.
what is the sound of one hand clapping?
It's this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5grIESGObM8
That said, I do sympathize with her for the things she talks about having experienced. I'm not even successful by HN's standards, just a CS grad working their way up the tech ladder in some decent companies, but every time I've experienced any level of success along the way I've always been met with petty resentment from not just peers but some I, at times, thought of as friends. Some people are just bizarre.
I've been told a lot in my side projects a similar thing: that the problem I solved wasn't the "valuable" one to solve, and that other people were far ahead in the "real" problem. It drives me absolutely insane. People diminish the success of others just so their project can be "superior," despite when it's actually far behind in the department that one excels at.
Whatever they're working on is like research. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. If you tell them it won't work (and you lack any relevant experience), they don't have a reason to believe you and neither do you frankly.
That's how I deal with it. I say to myself, who am I to judge?
This is quite common in the current us school system where children are routinely pitted against one another for the love of a proxy parent, aka teacher.
But you rinsight is still valuable: if you have difficulty getting over something, then remind yourself that you are being a like a drunk.
There's a difference between pursuing what you want independent of particular concern for what others have, and pursuing something because someone else has it. The end result upon acquisition is entirely different. It's similar to fame or prestige in that sense, which are given to you by other people's often fleeting opinions, and are frequently torturous accordingly to the extent one cares about such.
Most people don't really want things until they think they are getting the short end of the stick.
I don't think it's necessarily counterproductive.
Of course an all-consuming envy isn't good, but I think some degree of envy is human nature and not a big deal as long as you don't take it too seriously.
It can have an upside, if it becomes fuel to push yourself to work harder.
The experience also made me think what would happen if you were at a party with a large group of friends. God appears and gives everyone with a birthday on an odd numbered day a million dollars then leaves with no explanation. How happy for their friends are the people who didn't get anything? They are no worse off but I can't help thinking they would be happy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
Of course, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be better people than shitty, jealous little monkeys.
On the other hand, if we could tax the God-windfall at a high rate, then we could put those dollars toward social services and helping the most vulnerable members of society. :-)
I think the "lighting another candle" group are naturally wired more pragmatically; they're confident enough (or otherwise differently programmed) so that they don't feel socially competitive, and instead focus on growth. They focus on complementary aspects of Party B's success and act within reasonable social contexts to help propel Party B forward, understanding that if they're able to play a role in doing so, they'll likely be rewarded (be it financially, socially or otherwise).
I would posit that Silicon Valley can only exist because of a surplus of the latter category; it's the underpinning of VC as an industry, and business development as a branch of a corporation. In fact, it's downright dangerous for an investor to be socially competitive with founders - if you're expecting power law returns, you, by definition, have to invest in somebody that's likely going to end up more individually successful than you are and it's your job to make sure they get there.
All that said, there's definitely grey area. I'm sure that the "pragmatic" / "candle" group can still easily succumb to envy when the party they're interfacing with is quite literally competitive in a vertical they're operating in. None of us are perfect, so I think creating a delineation is a little dangerous. In-group vs. out-group thinking is only going to increase the social resentment factors (we can see it in this thread already).
"Oh, hard! that to fire others, the match itself must needs be wasting!" -- Moby Dick (Chapter 37, Sunset)
If you truly believe in something--be ready to lose a lot. One of those things you may lose is freedom from the scope and bile of other's jealousy.
But it's always a good idea to cut off negativity where you have control.
It's likely enough the author is observing something real in at least some cases, but it's laughable to imagine that perspective and deep insights into the minds of others (i.e., empathy) comes with success and comfort. All evidence is that the opposite is true. It's not farfetched to suppose that he sometimes reads something else (like frustration) as resentment.
It was no surprise to me that it's where the author lives.
It's more of the tech community attitude there.
People are afraid of being judged as not as smart so put others down as a defense. It's sad.
You could write a basic version of these tools in a few months, so it's easy for some programmers to dismiss-- but companies can do basic math, and understand that a $5,000 licensing fee is much cheaper than 3 months of developer time!
In the case laid out in the OP, it is a little subtle, but it's really about status games, not the knowledge itself. Otherwise he wouldn't need to make someone feel like shit for not knowing (or remembering) the term.
For example, I will readily admit I had to look it up because I don't use the term often -- I remembered learning it, and vaguely that it was related to the diagonal/determinant, but that was about it. That doesn't make it trivia, but it doesn't make me an idiot either.
So, it's not trivia if one needs to use it, but that's not how the protagonist in the essay used it. You can imagine how differently things would have gone if he kept his judgement to himself, had sharing information as the real goal, and simply explained what the trace was in the context of the conversation without the putdown. It wouldn't be trivia in that context, because it would be relevant to a useful conversation -- not a status cudgel.