If that's all you got from the post, you either weren't paying attention, or are not ready for it yet.

For one, whether "you give a fuck for what society thinks of [you]" or not, what society thinks of you has implications for you and your role in life. To put it jokingly, "it's not all about you".

Not to mention that far from "narrow-minded pop-culturist bullshit" the whole post drives endlessly the inverse notion.

"what society thinks of you" is what (according to the post) ends at forty: society doesn't think anything of you, -- it could not give less fucks, to use your wording. And part of the idea is that you should care even less, and instead (cynically or not) become a culture-maker yourself, selling truth to the younger generations.

It doesn't apply to everybody. In fact people content with work, family life, and 3 hours of TV/browsing everyday until they die at 80 won't even understand the thing.

Probably the former. I got that there's other ideas in there, but the writing was too clever and self-important for me to take seriously.

What I got from the post was mostly that the author thinks very highly of their own cleverness. The actual point was not really clear.

>What I got from the post was mostly that the author thinks very highly of their own cleverness.

Well, this is Hacker News. Ever read a PG essay? Besides, 90% of us think very highly of our own cleverness anyway.

The author just doesn't assume readers need his post feed to them, and goes on as if talking to his peers.

>The actual point was not really clear.

Don't know, it was quite clear to me -- even though it's the first time I've chanced on the guy, and he seems to have a specific set of references, inside jokes and prior posts on similar issues...

Well, perhaps you share his cultural context, then; I clearly do not, since he begins with statements which simply are not compatible with my experience of life and builds on them in ways which do not make any sense from my perspective on the world. I gave up halfway in, because he had gone so far off into his own self-referential argument that I could no longer even parse what he was trying to say.

Exactly. I think the OP takes a wrong turn in thinking "meaning" arises in relationship to "society", and declaring that "meaning is a game." Society is a game. As people grow up and find their own individual meaning in their pursuits and relationships, they stop caring so much about society and may sign out of the game completely.

The majority of people over 40 are not out there "making meaning" (the author's terminology for "influencing pop culture"), and that's just fine.

If you're successful person, you can already give a damn about what others think. When you're not that succesful, maybe it matters then.

Well, I wish you luck the next time you go looking for VC

Assuming someone needs or cares about VC because they work in Silicon Valley is like assuming they belong to a yacht club because they're wearing a polo shirt.

This makes me wildly curious if anyone has any rough statistics on what proportion of tech in SF is VC supported. I'm sure its incredibly nuanced and would be only a ballpark, but it would still be interesting.

People over 40 usually have been around long enough to be able raise a bit of money without pitching to VCs. Hell if you're 40 you might even have enough equity in your house to fund it yourself.

And you might have a couple of kids in middle school and not want to take such a chance on your family finances.

most of that money goes to middle aged white guys, despite what you see in the media. old white guys getting money isn't newsworthy.

Repeat after me: "I am not my work".

You're not your fucking khakis

I'm not sure others got this reference :o)

Where are their minds...?

"I am Jack's broken heart"

Fight Club people, come on

Jesus Christ....