There's a big difference between dropping out to pursue a new idea you haven't yet developed, and dropping out to expand an already successful idea to something more large scale.
The difference is: one course takes more balls than the other. Both are equally worthy goals.
Would you prefer a 1 in 10,000,000 chance to be a billionaire (and end up flipping burgers if you fail), or a 1 in 1000 chance to be a millionaire (and end up with a decent paying job if you fail)?
And they were uniquely prepared to take full advantage of those circumstances in a way that you, I or any armchair pundits here on slashdot could ever hope to do.
The original apple computers were BUILT by Jobs and Wozniak: try hacking together a mobile device yourself with meager capital, and see where that gets you; it's still going to cost you more per unit than Apple spends, and you won't get anywhere near the volume.
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. Anyone can build a crude prototype in their garage, even of a solar cell. Of course they aren't going to churn out thousands of production-quality units in the garage. That's what investors are for, to purchase factories. Do you think Thomas Edison, garage inventor, financed his entire company himself when he was first starting out?
Doesn't count, he inherited the company from Daddy
Doesn't count? The man who almost single-handedly transformed aviation, cinema, etc "doesn't count" because he had some advantages in life?
What about the guy who inherits millions and then blows it all the casino? You're saying he's just as good as the guy who inherits millions and turns it into billions?
have you heard of Ronald Wayne? He's a co-founder of Apple but sold out very early, if he'd kept all his stock he'd be worth 35 billion dollars today. But as he admits, he couldn't risk it and cashed out.
He doesn't admit anything of the sort, really. He claims he "made the best decision for me at the time" and is totally happy about living in a run down tow-behind trailer in Arizona. lol....
So I'm sure there are a lot more people who drop out of school to start a business and then end up back at school trying to finish their degrees a few years later than there are people who have a meteoric rise to success.
I agree.
Do you know what the reason is?
Because the people who give up and go back to school, are demonstrating to the world by this action that they don't have what it takes to succeed.
But to run company that belongs to somebody else or a public company to answer hordes of greedy shareholders, that is a different story altogether. Then my friend, you need every blessing, connections, academic achievements etc.
Wrong.
None of that is required by law (or by society, or for any other reason) to take a company public.
Because the person dropped out of high school? Or because it's absurdly unlikely in general that the average person will believe in himself enough to achieve real success, instead opting in 99% of cases to just be another cog in the machine?
There is no statistically significant difference between those who dropped out of high school and became a billionaire, and someone who got a PhD then became a billionaire. Well, except the guy with the PhD spent way more time, money, and effort.
Being in the right place at the right time, or having the right family is the real multiplier.
Both pale in importance in comparison to:
1) Having the vision to recognize an opportunity when you see one. Everyone is "at the right place at the right time" at least a few hundred times in their lives. The challenge is recognizing this situation.
2) Taking advantage of it. Even most of those who see good opportunities rarely take advantage of them, due to fear, ignorance, etc.
But if you are a betting person, you would increase your odds of becoming a tech executive if you have a college education and a senior executive if you have a management degree."
No, author/submitter, you would just be demonstrating to the world your complete misunderstanding of statistics.
The only people who wear polo shirts are unimaginative guys who want to look like everyone else.
If you aren't going to come up with something more creative and unique, just stick with what you love: t-shirts. That's what I do. I am not sacrificing my own comfort just to make anonymous morons in society feel more comfortable in their own skin.
It's great to be comfortable or a rebel and all, but the way humans (and computers) interact seamlessly is through standards. Clothing may seem trivial to you, but dressing for business is a statement that you are there *for* business.
Fuck your standards.
Clothing IS trivial. Only meatheads obsess over what people wear.
You can still be there for business if you wear a hoodie, but it becomes open to interpretation, just as Zuck's choice of apparel was.
Only a dumbass would have such an interpretation. All the smart people in the room were focused on what was actually important: the gigantic Facebook IPO.
That lack of clarity can ruffle feathers and be enough to make a difficult negotiation impossible.
Why would you want to negotiate with a moron? There are lots of billionaires in the world. Why would you want a moron as your investor?
Sometimes, that sort of clash is a statement, and as such, may be a good idea, but it comes with a risk.
Only for cowards. Leaders aren't "risking" a goddamn thing, because they are the ones who set the example.
One way or the other, anyone who expects their bits to arrive in an expected manner, but rails against people who arrive dressed in an expected manner isn't considering the value of convention to efficient and clear communication.
And what the fuck are you trying to "communicate" exactly, through your fancy suit? That you paid a lot of money for it? That you have a tailor? That you are willing to cow down and blend in the crowd and be just like all the other lemmings, when you aren't and don't want to be?
When society starts punishing success grounded in inherently (if unintentionally) exploitative practices and products, we will solve some real problems.
I don't necessarily interpret it to mean that he's admitting (at that point at least) to not be trustworthy with others data
Why wouldn't you? That's exactly what he said! The very first part was him offering to get the other guy any personal info he could want!
Anyone who has read this conversation, and who has seen the massive privacy violations Facebook has perpetrated on its users, KNOWS that Zuckerberg is an untrustworthy piece of shit. Stop apologizing for him.
Oh really? And cordoning off the "historic park" with barriers and shrink wrap with big "do not touch" signs isn't "narcissistic and selfish behavior"?
Free clue: These "historical places" aren't going to last forever, regardless. The world was put here for us to use and enjoy. No, somebody picking up a fucking rock from the ground in the Grand Canyon, or pulling a plant out of the ground in Yellowstone doesn't matter me a bit.
What if we were talking about a data center, with hundreds or thousand of routers? Still think you could afford it? Still think all that heat is helpful?
n short, they take 25% if you sell the game, but only if your game makes more than 50.000.
So in other words, one is better off using IdTech3/4, unless one plans to sell more than $50k, in which case the Unreal engine might be a viable option.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a big difference between dropping out to pursue a new idea you haven't yet developed, and dropping out to expand an already successful idea to something more large scale.
The difference is: one course takes more balls than the other. Both are equally worthy goals.
Would you prefer a 1 in 10,000,000 chance to be a billionaire (and end up flipping burgers if you fail), or a 1 in 1000 chance to be a millionaire (and end up with a decent paying job if you fail)?
Anyone thinking in these terms is bound to fail.
It's not about chances. We make our own luck..
And they were uniquely prepared to take full advantage of those circumstances in a way that you, I or any armchair pundits here on slashdot could ever hope to do.
You're selling yourself short.
I'm not "hoping" to do it--I'm doing it.
I would guess that a lot of the people saying degrees are useless are people without them.
Kinda like how the most fervent supporters of cannabis are those who smoke it.
You're comparing lottery winners to people who purposely made billions?
The original apple computers were BUILT by Jobs and Wozniak: try hacking together a mobile device yourself with meager capital, and see where that gets you; it's still going to cost you more per unit than Apple spends, and you won't get anywhere near the volume.
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. Anyone can build a crude prototype in their garage, even of a solar cell. Of course they aren't going to churn out thousands of production-quality units in the garage. That's what investors are for, to purchase factories. Do you think Thomas Edison, garage inventor, financed his entire company himself when he was first starting out?
Doesn't count, he inherited the company from Daddy
Doesn't count? The man who almost single-handedly transformed aviation, cinema, etc "doesn't count" because he had some advantages in life?
What about the guy who inherits millions and then blows it all the casino? You're saying he's just as good as the guy who inherits millions and turns it into billions?
have you heard of Ronald Wayne? He's a co-founder of Apple but sold out very early, if he'd kept all his stock he'd be worth 35 billion dollars today. But as he admits, he couldn't risk it and cashed out.
He doesn't admit anything of the sort, really. He claims he "made the best decision for me at the time" and is totally happy about living in a run down tow-behind trailer in Arizona. lol....
If they failed they would probably be working a middle class job right now,
No, that's what the average person would do.
The extraordinary person just picks himself up and tries again.
So I'm sure there are a lot more people who drop out of school to start a business and then end up back at school trying to finish their degrees a few years later than there are people who have a meteoric rise to success.
I agree.
Do you know what the reason is?
Because the people who give up and go back to school, are demonstrating to the world by this action that they don't have what it takes to succeed.
If they DID.....they wouldn't be giving up.
Failure.....retry. Failure.....retry. Failure.....retry. Failure....success.
However, they probably got at least a Bachelors at the beginning of their career, so the likelihood of causation is significantly greater.
No it's not. There is no causation between having a college degree and being rich.
The reason people get rich is simple and well known: the person wanted to be rich, and they did not stop failing at it until they succeeded.
But to run company that belongs to somebody else or a public company to answer hordes of greedy shareholders, that is a different story altogether. Then my friend, you need every blessing, connections, academic achievements etc.
Wrong.
None of that is required by law (or by society, or for any other reason) to take a company public.
Good people run their own companies.
Wrong. Your "friend" is obviously a poor leader.
Sure, it's possible, but it's absurdly unlikely.
Because the person dropped out of high school? Or because it's absurdly unlikely in general that the average person will believe in himself enough to achieve real success, instead opting in 99% of cases to just be another cog in the machine?
There is no statistically significant difference between those who dropped out of high school and became a billionaire, and someone who got a PhD then became a billionaire. Well, except the guy with the PhD spent way more time, money, and effort.
Why are you quoting Che Guevara?
Being in the right place at the right time, or having the right family is the real multiplier.
Both pale in importance in comparison to:
1) Having the vision to recognize an opportunity when you see one. Everyone is "at the right place at the right time" at least a few hundred times in their lives. The challenge is recognizing this situation.
2) Taking advantage of it. Even most of those who see good opportunities rarely take advantage of them, due to fear, ignorance, etc.
But if you are a betting person, you would increase your odds of becoming a tech executive if you have a college education and a senior executive if you have a management degree."
No, author/submitter, you would just be demonstrating to the world your complete misunderstanding of statistics.
I'm also perfectly within my right to make judgements based on what you do.
What makes you think I care about what you or anyone other random twit in a business suit thinks?
Deflate your ego down just a hair, please.
The only people who wear polo shirts are unimaginative guys who want to look like everyone else.
If you aren't going to come up with something more creative and unique, just stick with what you love: t-shirts. That's what I do. I am not sacrificing my own comfort just to make anonymous morons in society feel more comfortable in their own skin.
It's great to be comfortable or a rebel and all, but the way humans (and computers) interact seamlessly is through standards. Clothing may seem trivial to you, but dressing for business is a statement that you are there *for* business.
Fuck your standards.
Clothing IS trivial. Only meatheads obsess over what people wear.
You can still be there for business if you wear a hoodie, but it becomes open to interpretation, just as Zuck's choice of apparel was.
Only a dumbass would have such an interpretation. All the smart people in the room were focused on what was actually important: the gigantic Facebook IPO.
That lack of clarity can ruffle feathers and be enough to make a difficult negotiation impossible.
Why would you want to negotiate with a moron? There are lots of billionaires in the world. Why would you want a moron as your investor?
Sometimes, that sort of clash is a statement, and as such, may be a good idea, but it comes with a risk.
Only for cowards. Leaders aren't "risking" a goddamn thing, because they are the ones who set the example.
One way or the other, anyone who expects their bits to arrive in an expected manner, but rails against people who arrive dressed in an expected manner isn't considering the value of convention to efficient and clear communication.
And what the fuck are you trying to "communicate" exactly, through your fancy suit? That you paid a lot of money for it? That you have a tailor? That you are willing to cow down and blend in the crowd and be just like all the other lemmings, when you aren't and don't want to be?
When society starts punishing success grounded in inherently (if unintentionally) exploitative practices and products, we will solve some real problems.
You live in a naive fantasy world.
Who defines "exploitative"?
I don't necessarily interpret it to mean that he's admitting (at that point at least) to not be trustworthy with others data
Why wouldn't you? That's exactly what he said! The very first part was him offering to get the other guy any personal info he could want!
Anyone who has read this conversation, and who has seen the massive privacy violations Facebook has perpetrated on its users, KNOWS that Zuckerberg is an untrustworthy piece of shit. Stop apologizing for him.
Sociopath is a word used by those who can't think.
There is nothing "sociopathic" about someone who is in the highest ranks of society.
You just use that label because your ego can't stand the thought that someone could actually be BETTER and SMARTER than you in some way.
It's a narcissistic and selfish behavior.
Oh really? And cordoning off the "historic park" with barriers and shrink wrap with big "do not touch" signs isn't "narcissistic and selfish behavior"?
Free clue: These "historical places" aren't going to last forever, regardless. The world was put here for us to use and enjoy. No, somebody picking up a fucking rock from the ground in the Grand Canyon, or pulling a plant out of the ground in Yellowstone doesn't matter me a bit.
Well worth the staggering expense to avoid Cisco.
What if we were talking about a data center, with hundreds or thousand of routers? Still think you could afford it? Still think all that heat is helpful?
n short, they take 25% if you sell the game, but only if your game makes more than 50.000.
So in other words, one is better off using IdTech3/4, unless one plans to sell more than $50k, in which case the Unreal engine might be a viable option.
25% of sales is HUGE.