HN user
Agreed. And if more high income professionals pursued this path, it would tip the balance of power in the workforce away from employers. That's a win for all except those at the top.
Keep in mind that for me it was before the FAANG companies became the new evil tech overlords, and to some extent even before the Great Financial Crisis of 2008. Back then it was much easier for naive young college students or new grads to buy into that narrative of using our talents to make the world a better place through professional careers.
High achieving college students.
This article has a narrow definition of passive income, limiting it to these low-barrier-to-entry schemes. Other parts of the FIRE world have emphasized being a landlord or flipping houses, for example.
I personally made it happen by working a FAANG SWE job for 13 years, not getting sidetracked by the startup cult, saving and investing 70% of my after tax income, etc. And no I didn't get into crypto, but I still managed to make it with conventional investments.
In fact, I chose to pursue a career in the tech industry in order to pursue financial independence in the first place. Because I knew back then (circa 2005) all the tech Kool aid was BS. That "don't be evil" was just a facade. And time has proven me right and my haters wrong, those who thought it was unethical for me to place wealth building ahead of career building.
It's been four years since I've been out of a job. Now I'm creating more passion oriented content. I'm never bored.
Shouldn't this be great news that the government is banned from using Anthropic?
I don't know why suddenly the narrative here turns to spinning this as "Trump is evil" when this is actually keeping the AI company out of the government's reach.
The level of cognitive dissonance here is unreal.
11
Great answer, thank you for your perspective.
Roof Koreans were in LA not SF.
Should be "lays off"
/grammarnazi
Han Solo was apparently wrong when he said "droids don't rip people's arms off when they lose."
Save up money religiously for over a decade and retire early.
I am a Silicon Valley native, graduated from Stanford, worked at Google for a decade. Never felt like I belonged there socially or in terms of viewpoints.
I left to complete the journey to financial independence without the burden of California state income tax. I got no benefit from being around a bunch of one dimensional software engineers with zero creativity in their lives outside of tech, no sense of independence or adventure.
That was the whole point -- it was fixed early on by killing the tank, rendering the exploit useless, which is why you never see it in games anymore.
Search on YT for the tank glitch.
I sometimes get an urge to work on the myriad of game ideas I've written down over the years. And every time I remind myself that what I really like is the "idea" of making a game, not the actual process. Because the actual process is a draining, thankless and often rage inducing process. The actual building of a game is 95% of the time spent on stupid little details like making a door work properly.
Yeah, I agree. I actually started out learning programming as a pre-teen by making my own games. It can be a lot of fun at times, but a lot of frustration too, and I can see how the latter eclipses the former as as you scale into a more complex game and with a bigger team.
It's not an easy job that's for sure.
Not at all. Network issues make everything in games more complicated, not just bullets going through doors.
Everything in games can be complicated: physics, doors, AI, network. Even the first line of that video description.
I think that just proves my original point: it's clickbait to single out doors as being exceptionally hard versus everything else in game design.
Except network issues were not mentioned in the video. Moving the goalposts.
I noticed that most if not all of these questions are applicable to doors in even simple 2D games.
Whereas the physics engine and real-world realism aspects are what the video talks about.
If the problem is that doors are inherently difficult to design, the counterpoint is that these questions have already been answered in multiple ways over the past 30+ years of video game history. It's easier today than ever to answer these questions by drawing on previous games.
Yes, StarCraft I. The issue wasn't physical realism. The problem was that a player could move a tank under a building during mid-landing, siege it up, and the boundaries of the building protected the siege tank from melee attacks.
Killing the tank was the "creative" solution, instead of a "brute force" solution to change the game dynamics to prevent the tank from sieging up under the building in the first place.
In SC2 the tanks will be forced to move out from under the building when it lands, but SC2 also has a much improved unit movement system over SC1 that allows this to be done more easily.
I watched the video again. Still don't see what the big deal is. For example...
NPCs blocking doors? Don't put NPCs there, and tell AI to avoid door zones rather than trying to make them know how to move out of the way when doors open.
Car on the other side of the door? Don't let the door open all the way.
In the elevator example in the IGN article: Implement an elevator door like in modern elevators, or if it's more primitive, don't let players or NPCs walk under the elevator, or worst case, kill the character -- can't call the AI dumb if they avoid being under the elevator that can kill them.
This isn't an unsolved problem. Halo did this with telefragging someone who is blocking a teleporter, and StarCraft did this by destroying the siege tank under a landed building.
Because the relativity principle applies to non-accelerating motion relative to other objects.
A planet orbiting the sun is accelerating toward the sun.
How should I respond if I tell them it's a warmup that shouldn't take more than 10 minutes, and they're still having trouble? Isn't that going to demoralize them?
I've gotten some candidates who come from backgrounds with non gregorian calendars. In those cases we spend a minute talking about their calendar and then I ask them to write it for their calendar.
We don't explore it from every angle. I try to speed them up by saying things like "first 3 months have 31/28/31 days, and use '...' for the remaining days so you don't have to write it out.
A few candidates have finished in under 5 minutes.
They usually figure out the mapping/array of dates per month early.
If we're going to highlight the founders' whiteness, can we also highlight their Jewishness?
Oh it's sexually suggestive for sure. The point is just that Twitch can't outright say the reason for that. If she had small breasts, there would be no way to call it "bouncy."
BTW That's not her channel. The "bouncy" label might have been added by the uploader of the video
Maybe we have different standards of what revealing means. To me it would be if she were wearing a bikini, showing underwear, having a low V-cut top etc.
She's only "revealing" her cleavage because she has so much cleavage to reveal. Which proves my original point that this wouldn't be an issue with a woman with the same clothes but small breasts.
Slightly off topic:
This post says "13 hours ago" but when I do an HN search for it, it says 1 day ago.
I also recall reading many of the comments way earlier than the postrd date/time being shown.
Is this an HN bug? Or am I going crazy?
Probably travel for a while, take care of those bucket list items, and then figure it out. My creativity is completely dead from working in big tech (see my user name) -- it will take some time for it to come back and then have a sprouting of various ideas.
I'm really not in a place to plan beyond that right now.