Sounds like he was in the right place at the right time. I think it would be a mistake to read anything into his story other than "be really lucky".
EDIT: There were lots of people just like him that weren't crazy-successful. It's wonderful that he put himself into a place where he could succeed, but that's only necessary, not sufficient, to realize that success. He deserves credit for buying the ticket and taking the ride, but beyond that it's luck.
Where do you think the "right" place is right now?
The problem I always have is that the right place isn't really apparent until years after the decision about where to be is made. At the time, there're many places that look appealing, and little reason to choose one over the other. And then it's only with hindsight that one of those becomes a big success and the rest become has-beens.
I was thinking about this today when responding to a Reddit post whining about how there're no good high-paying jobs left in this country:
Of course that's false. However, when I think about how I got my good high-paying job, the answer that comes to mind is "pure dumb luck". I happened to like computers when I was a teen in the 90s, and I happened to stick with it through the dot-com bust in the early 2000s, and so now that these CS jobs are paying six figures easily, I've got close to ten years experience in skills that are very hot. But I wasn't really thinking about professions or salary at the time; I was thinking "Hey, this seems sorta interesting, I wonder what else I can find out..."
YC. Of course I'm biased, but on the other hand I'm betting on it :)
Even companies that don't make it often lead their founders to other great opportunities (e.g. at other yc companies). I also believe there's something surprisingly powerful about witnessing success first hand.
You should instead read this story as "work really hard, take risks, and luck will find you". Whether that luck is Google or some other pretty successful venture is of course somewhat random - there is no doubt, though, that success - the vague, abstract idea of it - will find you eventually.
Maybe "luck" will find you, but we need to acknowledge the scope and scale of his luck. Being willing to work hard and being good at what you do will probably ensure you a decent job, but I don't think you can generate luck to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Geography is becoming increasing irrelevant. I live in a small 855 person town in the middle of America. I just found an awesome job, working with an awesome company doing really interesting work.
There's definitely luck in being involved with a Google size outcome but I can't believe that someone with his approach to life wouldn't consistently achieve a significantly above average level of success.
"EDIT: There were lots of people just like him that weren't crazy-successful."
I'd be curious to hear examples of people who spent a day wearing a sandwich board with their resume in the financial district, and did all the other things this guy did, and did not end up achieving some level of success.
He reminds me of Chris Gardner, who inspired the movie Pursuit of Happyness.
agree.. as theres something to be said about inspirational stories, I think the real lesson should be about taking calculated risks. I mean the same could be said about many actors giving up everything and coming to Hollywood looking for fame. There are many success stories, but probably a lot more failure stories.
Imagine a place where early-stage technology companies can get inexpensive development capital from the pooled investment dollars of individuals who trade their stock directly over the Internet.
Yes, this guy got superbly lucky. He also put himself into a position where it was possible to get superbly lucky, and then capitalized on that luck as well as possible.
Sounds like someone that only looked at successful people.
It's human nature to pant simplified story's about how something came to be, but the reality is a lot of things have to go right to make a successful person. First off Don't get hit by a bus etc.
We could sit here and think of all the reasons why that isn't true. You need to not get hit by the bus, not be a moron, have lungs, etc. Obviously, if you get hit by the bus its game over and it doesn't matter. The same with all the above.
The point is that we know that successful people ship and work on things everyday. Maybe that's not enough to be a success, but it is the one thing they all have in common.
Let's imagine a world, where all you make is crap. If you shipped crap one of three things will happen. You will become prolific, as in your crap will be everywhere. Look at Shepard Fairy's "Obey Giant." There's nothing special about that, but when you're everywhere it's hard to ignore you.
Another option is that you actually improve. An awesome case study in this is go read iwillteachyoutoberich.com. You can tell from his first post to his posts today Ramit has really improved.
The last option of course is that you neither improve or become prolific and you suck at life in general. Hopefully, you can avoid this, but if you can't at least work on things you think are important and fun. Most people hate their jobs, so it's not google payout success, but it is personal success.
Don't focus on the story, you can make them say just about anything.
Take a slightly different narrative. J.K Rowling is richer than just about anyone that's going to write an advice book. She made something around 1 billion executing an idea she was amazed to see make 105k. Her first book was rejected by 12 publishing company's for over a year. So, do what you love and double down even when it's not working. (Notice how no pivot is needed nor is improvement.)
There is nothing magical about making money. People spend insane amounts of money on a wide range of things. All you need to do is find out how you can get a tiny slice of that. Sell a 300 million dolor boat to one person or 300 million dollar soda's and they are still a tiny fraction of a single years consumption. But, just 1% of those sales is plenty for most people to retire on.
JK sold entertainment and iwillteachyoutoberich sells a fantasy, they are vary different markets that need completely different approaches. And when you start to look at the approaches to gathering wealth you can start to look at the people who where not successful. And some times it really does just come down to luck. So, find a nitch whose risks and lifestyle agrees with you and have at it.
PS: Although Bloomsbury agreed to publish the book, Cunningham says that he advised Rowling to get a day job, since she had little chance of making money in children’s books. Now, consider was it bad advice at the time? And would it have mattered if she had taken it? I mean the book was already being published, so there was no need to double down at the time.
You missed the biggest part of the story ie, you need to interact with a lot of people asking for their help while backing it up with past achievement and not letting down the ones who trusted you.
Knowing and interacting with tons of different people is what creates luck.
Being good at something is what let's you capitalize on it.
Doesn't shipping do that? It causes you to interact with tons of different people, either directly with your work or in the process of shipping your work.
Actually you could ship without talking to anyone. and shipping is an economic transaction. It's not a basis for a relationship.
You need to know a lot of people who are invested in you personally. That doesn't happen if the relationship is transaction(in an economic sense) based - ie "I'm only interested in talking to you if you can help/buy my product".
You need to go out and help people yourself and ask help from others.
I view shipping as putting it out the door. You can ship a blog post that connects with others, and not have an economic transaction. Again, shipping is hitting the post button.
You can ship on an e-mail you spent 12 hours researching to help x with their marketing efforts. Sending the e-mail was shipping.
Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. You cannot make that statement without considering all the people who shipped and worked on something everyday and are not successful.
I shipped things and worked on something every day from age 22 to 35 and was not successful. Silicon Valley is filled with people and the ghosts of people just like me.
I'm not sure there's as much to learn from failure as various self-help business books would suggest. When you remove the specifics all startup advice is trite at best and dangerous at worst.
'This was one of the most humbling moments of my life. I stood
out, exposed, bluntly asking for help and displaying my
convictions.'
'Time passed and Mark had yet to start his new company, and I
was flat broke. I went to him yet again and asked for help.
You see luck here, I see something far more inspiring and saying just luck may undermine those, IMHO.
> He also put himself into a position where it was possible to get superbly lucky
That reminds me of a story where a professional golfer took a year off for practicing, no tournaments or other distractions. After that, on his first tournament he started with hole-in-one.
A journalist asked him "surely that must have been luck? Nobody can reliably train a hole-in one", upon which the golfer answered "Yes, it was luck. But the more I train, the luckier I get".
I always loved this answer, because it contains a deep truth: must people who seem to be "lucky" really worked hard, and then had luck too. None of our rich programming idols seems lazy to me.
P.S. I have no idea if the story with the golfer actually happened, or if it's fiction; I can't remember any sources.
I wonder if this could've happened outside the Bay Area though. This is part of the reason the area works so well as a hub, because it really does maximize serendipity of the life-changing kind, since almost everyone in the area has been in a similar situation before.
Forget about the Google element. Forget about the technology element. It's an example of someone who was relentlessly resourceful.
If he wasn't in the Bay Area he would have found an incredible opportunity somewhere else, always throwing himself into the path of oncoming opportunities.
I wonder how different his story would be if he was still at Google today. I understand that there was a pretty magical feeling at Google in its pre- and immediately post-IPO days, and I'd be interested to hear from someone who lived through that and is still at Google now.
My VP is one of those double-digit-employee-ID people, and he recently said "People ask me what it was like to work at Google in the early days. This [the making of Google Instant] was what it was like to work at Google back then."
So in at least some parts, that spirit still exists at Google. The problem is that it's much harder to find well-defined problems that are ambitious and yet feasible.
You know, as awesome as Google Instant is in principle, I never find myself using it. The chrome omnibox is just too useful, although I get that's pretty much Instant anyway.
I'm the same way...I often find Instant actively distracting as a user, particularly since usually the only time it triggers for me is when I'm editing some numbers on a Calculator search. (For everything else, there's the Omnibox.)
But I'm not a typical user. Chrome's market share is what? 7-10%? That means that 90-93% of Internet users don't even have an Omnibox.
Anyway, I think his point isn't necessarily that Instant is awesome (though I'd imagine he'd think it is), it's that the making of Instant was awesome, and included the same sort of focused teamwork in pursuit of a seemingly impossible goal that early Google had.
[Side note: from everything I've heard, Chrome itself is one of those awesomely-managed projects that contains a large team of people working towards an ambitious goal. Much like early Google.]
RE: Side note: That's the impression I get. Given Chrome's release schedule and the pace at which they're improving it, it really seems like a balls-out effort by a fairly large group of driven engineers. I bet it'd be fun to work on.
My experience as a student of CS is that you are taught principles that will most likely stay the same for the next 10-40 years.
Besides that, every talented student i've met so far figured most of these principles out for themselves before deciding to study cs.
Either they learned it out of own interest or just concluded them out of the it world they were presented at the time.
There are a lot of students at my university who put lots of hard hours into learning the cs just because they hope to earn a lot at a stable job with the degree and i don't judge them for their goal, but i wouldn't be interested as an employer in one of them because from my experience the ideas needed for innovation aren't born in a grinding mind.
From your earlier post though, you're only 1 or two years into your CS course? If that's your exposure then I'd agree: the stuff you learn in the early part of a CS course is the stuff that a bright person could figure out for themselves. It's the basics. The basics are important of course, but that's not all there is to it - and that's why the course doesn't just end after the first year.
Also, regarding your final paragraph, innovation isn't the only valuable attribute. The best innovators aren't necessarily the best finishers. A well rounded team needs both to deliver a good product.
I know you were giving your opinion; just trying to provide an alternative point of view.
From wikipedia:
In computer graphics it [bubblesort] is popular for its capability to detect a very small error (like swap of just two elements) in almost sorted array and fix it in with just linear complexity (2n)
One possible use of this is sorting objects in a scene by depth. If you do one pass of bubble sort per frame typically this is 'good enough' for most applications.
Get your degree and work on your own projects. College is perfect for that since it's a few years where you have student loans as a financial buffer and nobody's pestering you about not having a job.
Exactly. Get the degree and work on your own projects. This is how I described my experience recruiting at a college job fair:
"One student showed me her resume: it showed perfect GPA, lots of classes with impressive-sounding titles. But no summer job, no internship, no side project.
Another student showed me a less than perfect resume, but it had all kinds of extra-curricular projects and activities, showing exposure to technologies, people and business challenges." (from http://blog.fairsoftware.net/2009/05/13/being-a-new-cs-grad-...)
Over a two-week period, I left messages on every single voice mailbox I could get at that company. I was never able to get a human on the phone or get a call back
This is a story of a true hustler - and I mean that in a good way.
This guy got out there and hustled for a job. He hustled his way into Netscape by persistently calling and eventually "hacking" his way into contact with a well connected business person.
Then when he was employed at Google, he went out there and hustled dollars that made them actually get some turnover.
It's a story we don't hear very often. It's a story about the people that make the money rather than the people that make the technology.
In a world where so much of the technology sector seems to be predicated on the idea that you build something cool, get users and sort the "money stuff" out later, it's easy to forget that, at some point, someone's gotta get out there and actually make some god damned money.
Having attempted to sell various technological services of my own for the past 4 years, I can whole-heartedly say that in my experience, building the technology is the easy part.
Being able to monetise it is a magical gift!
I'd also like to add that I find it pretty far fetched to refer to this success as "luck". Being a good salesman, being a good hustler, is all about being there. That's why CRM systems are such a vital sales tool - you need to make sure that every few months you call your prospects, and if you don't sell to them then you make an appointment to call back in 3 months and so on.
Whether you're selling vacuum cleaners or selling your own services as an employee or contractor, you can't refer to every successful sales as "luck" - it's success based on persistent action. If anything you'd have to refer to people who hustle well and don't succeed as being unlucky, rather than the other way around.
Good salespeople are awesome and I am in awe at their ability to do things that most hackers don't realize. Remembering names, building relationships, and convincing people to give them money.
It's very easy to disparage what they do because from the outside it seems trivial. But I attended a sales meeting once and I'm never taking these guys for granted ever again.
To put it another way, their entire salary is based around selling your work. As a programmer that pulls a normal salary, that means they have more confidence in what you do than you.
Also, company hierarchy almost always dictates that the further you are from the money the more precarious your role is. You could lay off all the engineers tomorrow and the company would limp along for 1-2 years. You lay off all of the sales staff and that company is dead in months.
I google his name and there is not much about him after he left google.
He says 'I am now looking to share some of my knowledge and experience to benefit the next wave of those who aspire to do as I did'
I am just curious what has he done to benefit the next wave?
And he started the Warrior Heart Foundation to "inspire and empower people to live their dreams". Unfortunately, I can't find much about it except some videos of their participation in the Gumball rally.
If I ever start a charitable foundation, I want it to be the kind of charitable foundation that allows the founder to race supercars and doesn't seem to have any other activities. That's my kind of charity.
Loved the story, as of course, so many of you did.
At the risk of being sounding judgmental on other people, I will still say, that his now leading a retired(ish) life doesn't jell well with the story of a person, who can do such heroics (like putting a job needed board, on his chest and standing the whole day).
Again, apologize for being preachy, life is a journey, and stagnating at any point, doesn't help...I am about as old as him...have had my share of moderate successes in life... looking for more...some of the best code I've written in my life has been in the past couple of years...look to write lots more ...:)
When he said, quote-unquote, "retired" he most likely just meant that he is no longer forced to work for his substinance. He is still out there, he is just free to pursue exactly what he wants.
I agree. Actually, at my age (approaching middle age), that 'retirement' word, doesn't sound right ... it may mean either 'resigned', 'lazy', 'tired' and other negatives... and success can indeed make you 'lazy' and 'fat'... so may be I read more into it. Personally, don't like that 'retirement' word. At-least not till I am actually forced to do :)
So my role models are people like Vishy Anand, who at 41, is still the world chess champion (I believe, hacking is also as energy-needing as playing chess)...
Perhaps those who downvoted you disapprove of your writing style and not your (allegedly good) intentions.
The downvoted comment has an unrehearsed, rambling air to it. Frequent comma splices and mis- and overuse of ellipsis (…) don’t help.
The writer is responsible for presenting their ideas effectively. It’s a common courtesy to spare the reader from deciphering a first draft of your ideas.
Also I think, its quite cowardly, to down-vote without giving a reason, when there is no obvious spam. Look at my profile, do I even give a link to my website?
Come on show some guts. Give me the reason for down voting. I deserve a reply.
It brings me hope that a non-coder can make a dent in the tech world. Job listings in the past few months have been a bit discouraging for business dev & marketing types.
94 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 179 ms ] threadEDIT: There were lots of people just like him that weren't crazy-successful. It's wonderful that he put himself into a place where he could succeed, but that's only necessary, not sufficient, to realize that success. He deserves credit for buying the ticket and taking the ride, but beyond that it's luck.
The problem I always have is that the right place isn't really apparent until years after the decision about where to be is made. At the time, there're many places that look appealing, and little reason to choose one over the other. And then it's only with hindsight that one of those becomes a big success and the rest become has-beens.
I was thinking about this today when responding to a Reddit post whining about how there're no good high-paying jobs left in this country:
http://www.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/eyu1o/the_unemploym...
Of course that's false. However, when I think about how I got my good high-paying job, the answer that comes to mind is "pure dumb luck". I happened to like computers when I was a teen in the 90s, and I happened to stick with it through the dot-com bust in the early 2000s, and so now that these CS jobs are paying six figures easily, I've got close to ten years experience in skills that are very hot. But I wasn't really thinking about professions or salary at the time; I was thinking "Hey, this seems sorta interesting, I wonder what else I can find out..."
Even companies that don't make it often lead their founders to other great opportunities (e.g. at other yc companies). I also believe there's something surprisingly powerful about witnessing success first hand.
Don't use the place as an excuse.
I'd be curious to hear examples of people who spent a day wearing a sandwich board with their resume in the financial district, and did all the other things this guy did, and did not end up achieving some level of success.
He reminds me of Chris Gardner, who inspired the movie Pursuit of Happyness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pursuit_of_Happyness
(from the document TechnoEquity)
http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2010/10/serendipity-finds-y...
Yes, this guy got superbly lucky. He also put himself into a position where it was possible to get superbly lucky, and then capitalized on that luck as well as possible.
I've since read about all the popele who I find successful. Here's the conclusion I've come to.
1. They ship things.
2. They work on something everyday.
If you do those two things you will be successful.
It's human nature to pant simplified story's about how something came to be, but the reality is a lot of things have to go right to make a successful person. First off Don't get hit by a bus etc.
We could sit here and think of all the reasons why that isn't true. You need to not get hit by the bus, not be a moron, have lungs, etc. Obviously, if you get hit by the bus its game over and it doesn't matter. The same with all the above.
The point is that we know that successful people ship and work on things everyday. Maybe that's not enough to be a success, but it is the one thing they all have in common.
Let's imagine a world, where all you make is crap. If you shipped crap one of three things will happen. You will become prolific, as in your crap will be everywhere. Look at Shepard Fairy's "Obey Giant." There's nothing special about that, but when you're everywhere it's hard to ignore you.
Another option is that you actually improve. An awesome case study in this is go read iwillteachyoutoberich.com. You can tell from his first post to his posts today Ramit has really improved.
The last option of course is that you neither improve or become prolific and you suck at life in general. Hopefully, you can avoid this, but if you can't at least work on things you think are important and fun. Most people hate their jobs, so it's not google payout success, but it is personal success.
Take a slightly different narrative. J.K Rowling is richer than just about anyone that's going to write an advice book. She made something around 1 billion executing an idea she was amazed to see make 105k. Her first book was rejected by 12 publishing company's for over a year. So, do what you love and double down even when it's not working. (Notice how no pivot is needed nor is improvement.)
There is nothing magical about making money. People spend insane amounts of money on a wide range of things. All you need to do is find out how you can get a tiny slice of that. Sell a 300 million dolor boat to one person or 300 million dollar soda's and they are still a tiny fraction of a single years consumption. But, just 1% of those sales is plenty for most people to retire on.
JK sold entertainment and iwillteachyoutoberich sells a fantasy, they are vary different markets that need completely different approaches. And when you start to look at the approaches to gathering wealth you can start to look at the people who where not successful. And some times it really does just come down to luck. So, find a nitch whose risks and lifestyle agrees with you and have at it.
PS: Although Bloomsbury agreed to publish the book, Cunningham says that he advised Rowling to get a day job, since she had little chance of making money in children’s books. Now, consider was it bad advice at the time? And would it have mattered if she had taken it? I mean the book was already being published, so there was no need to double down at the time.
Thanks for the great discussion!
Knowing and interacting with tons of different people is what creates luck.
Being good at something is what let's you capitalize on it.
You need to know a lot of people who are invested in you personally. That doesn't happen if the relationship is transaction(in an economic sense) based - ie "I'm only interested in talking to you if you can help/buy my product".
You need to go out and help people yourself and ask help from others.
You can ship on an e-mail you spent 12 hours researching to help x with their marketing efforts. Sending the e-mail was shipping.
They're too busy to tell you why they're successful.
I'm sorry to hear that but I think you might have a lot of insights that would help us up and coming entrepreneurs if your willing to share.
Something else is your actual calling. Maybe its helping entrepreneurs?
PS: I'm not trying to sound trite. I mean this sincerely.
35 is still young too, plenty of successful founders at 35, albeit less common then under 30.
This is actually the best comment of the whole thread.
It's just as dangerous to sit on hacker news or read about other people all day as it is to sit infront of the TV or play xbox all day.
You see luck here, I see something far more inspiring and saying just luck may undermine those, IMHO.
That reminds me of a story where a professional golfer took a year off for practicing, no tournaments or other distractions. After that, on his first tournament he started with hole-in-one.
A journalist asked him "surely that must have been luck? Nobody can reliably train a hole-in one", upon which the golfer answered "Yes, it was luck. But the more I train, the luckier I get".
I always loved this answer, because it contains a deep truth: must people who seem to be "lucky" really worked hard, and then had luck too. None of our rich programming idols seems lazy to me.
P.S. I have no idea if the story with the golfer actually happened, or if it's fiction; I can't remember any sources.
A big theme in his talk is how to engineer your luck.
If he wasn't in the Bay Area he would have found an incredible opportunity somewhere else, always throwing himself into the path of oncoming opportunities.
So in at least some parts, that spirit still exists at Google. The problem is that it's much harder to find well-defined problems that are ambitious and yet feasible.
But I'm not a typical user. Chrome's market share is what? 7-10%? That means that 90-93% of Internet users don't even have an Omnibox.
Anyway, I think his point isn't necessarily that Instant is awesome (though I'd imagine he'd think it is), it's that the making of Instant was awesome, and included the same sort of focused teamwork in pursuit of a seemingly impossible goal that early Google had.
[Side note: from everything I've heard, Chrome itself is one of those awesomely-managed projects that contains a large team of people working towards an ambitious goal. Much like early Google.]
My time spent learning algorithms and mathemathics that bore me with lack of practicality could be spent working on my own projects...
What do you think, is a degree in CS important for someone who is able to employ himself and (soon) others?
How you answer that may help you.
My experience as a student of CS is that you are taught principles that will most likely stay the same for the next 10-40 years. Besides that, every talented student i've met so far figured most of these principles out for themselves before deciding to study cs. Either they learned it out of own interest or just concluded them out of the it world they were presented at the time.
There are a lot of students at my university who put lots of hard hours into learning the cs just because they hope to earn a lot at a stable job with the degree and i don't judge them for their goal, but i wouldn't be interested as an employer in one of them because from my experience the ideas needed for innovation aren't born in a grinding mind.
Also, regarding your final paragraph, innovation isn't the only valuable attribute. The best innovators aren't necessarily the best finishers. A well rounded team needs both to deliver a good product.
I know you were giving your opinion; just trying to provide an alternative point of view.
"One student showed me her resume: it showed perfect GPA, lots of classes with impressive-sounding titles. But no summer job, no internship, no side project.
Another student showed me a less than perfect resume, but it had all kinds of extra-curricular projects and activities, showing exposure to technologies, people and business challenges." (from http://blog.fairsoftware.net/2009/05/13/being-a-new-cs-grad-...)
Sure, they needed to learn to hustle, too, but knowing algorithms sure did help them a lot getting to where they are now.
I thought this would be about Google
This guy got out there and hustled for a job. He hustled his way into Netscape by persistently calling and eventually "hacking" his way into contact with a well connected business person.
Then when he was employed at Google, he went out there and hustled dollars that made them actually get some turnover.
It's a story we don't hear very often. It's a story about the people that make the money rather than the people that make the technology.
In a world where so much of the technology sector seems to be predicated on the idea that you build something cool, get users and sort the "money stuff" out later, it's easy to forget that, at some point, someone's gotta get out there and actually make some god damned money.
Having attempted to sell various technological services of my own for the past 4 years, I can whole-heartedly say that in my experience, building the technology is the easy part.
Being able to monetise it is a magical gift!
I'd also like to add that I find it pretty far fetched to refer to this success as "luck". Being a good salesman, being a good hustler, is all about being there. That's why CRM systems are such a vital sales tool - you need to make sure that every few months you call your prospects, and if you don't sell to them then you make an appointment to call back in 3 months and so on.
Whether you're selling vacuum cleaners or selling your own services as an employee or contractor, you can't refer to every successful sales as "luck" - it's success based on persistent action. If anything you'd have to refer to people who hustle well and don't succeed as being unlucky, rather than the other way around.
It's very easy to disparage what they do because from the outside it seems trivial. But I attended a sales meeting once and I'm never taking these guys for granted ever again.
To put it another way, their entire salary is based around selling your work. As a programmer that pulls a normal salary, that means they have more confidence in what you do than you.
Also, company hierarchy almost always dictates that the further you are from the money the more precarious your role is. You could lay off all the engineers tomorrow and the company would limp along for 1-2 years. You lay off all of the sales staff and that company is dead in months.
----- http://www.etradinglife.com ------
----- http://www.etradinglife.com ------
----- http://www.etradinglife.com ------
----- http://www.etradinglife.com ------
----- http://www.etradinglife.com ------
----- http://www.etradinglife.com ------
---- http://www.etradinglife.com ------
And he started the Warrior Heart Foundation to "inspire and empower people to live their dreams". Unfortunately, I can't find much about it except some videos of their participation in the Gumball rally.
At the risk of being sounding judgmental on other people, I will still say, that his now leading a retired(ish) life doesn't jell well with the story of a person, who can do such heroics (like putting a job needed board, on his chest and standing the whole day).
Again, apologize for being preachy, life is a journey, and stagnating at any point, doesn't help...I am about as old as him...have had my share of moderate successes in life... looking for more...some of the best code I've written in my life has been in the past couple of years...look to write lots more ...:)
Its quite insulting to be done so, after having written the comment, with the best of intentions.
PS: If I don't get a satisfactory answer. Will quit HN. It may not matter to you of course.
So my role models are people like Vishy Anand, who at 41, is still the world chess champion (I believe, hacking is also as energy-needing as playing chess)...
The downvoted comment has an unrehearsed, rambling air to it. Frequent comma splices and mis- and overuse of ellipsis (…) don’t help.
The writer is responsible for presenting their ideas effectively. It’s a common courtesy to spare the reader from deciphering a first draft of your ideas.
Come on show some guts. Give me the reason for down voting. I deserve a reply.
:)
=== http://goo.gl/l5v0b ====
=== http://goo.gl/l5v0b ====
=== http://goo.gl/l5v0b ====
=== http://goo.gl/l5v0b ====
=== http://goo.gl/l5v0b ====
Gold autumn, personality Mes clothing + Shoes, Travel bag that grabs an eye coat + Chao packet Free transport
=== http://goo.gl/l5v0b ====
=== http://goo.gl/l5v0b ====
=== http://goo.gl/l5v0b ====
=== http://goo.gl/l5v0b ====
=== http://goo.gl/l5v0b ====