I'd generalize it to: "Great craftspeople have to kind of like the part of their craft that is unpleasant to 99% of the population."

Someone who excels at playing violin, writing computer software, public speaking, etc., generally does not find the "unpleasant" part to be "tiring", "boring", or "work". Instead, it's just part of the overall experience, which is a net positive.

When I was younger, I had a classmate who's an excellent violin player. Her practice schedule sounded awful to me, with well over an hour spent even on weekdays. I played musical instruments, too, and I liked a little practice, but rarely more than 30 minutes in a day.

I asked the violin player about this schedule, and the way she answered the question made it clear that practicing didn't seem unpleasant, or like "work," like it would to many other people. It was something she truly enjoyed.

Similar things can be applied to software development and liking the idea of investigating obtuse error messages and things breaking without any clear root cause.

I think this is an important bit that a lot of people getting into programming don't realize. Many enjoy the "playing with computers" aspect. Some even enjoy writing new code. But the real test is do you enjoy fixing broken code?

The article ends with:

> Maybe this is what people mean when they tell us to "find our passion", but that phrase seems pretty abstract to me. Maybe instead we should encourage people to find the hard problems they like to work on. Which problems do you want to keep working on, even when they turn out to be harder than you expected? Which kinds of frustration do you enjoy, or at least are willing to endure while you figure things out? Answers to these very practical questions might help you find a place where you can build an interesting and rewarding life.

> I realize that "Find your passion" makes for a more compelling motivational poster than "What hard problems do you enjoy working on?" (and even that's a lot better than "What kind of pain are you willing to endure?"), but it might give some people a more realistic way to approach finding their life's work.

--

Another article that I love is Programming Sucks ( https://www.stilldrinking.org/programming-sucks )

This one starts with:

> Every friend I have with a job that involves picking up something heavier than a laptop more than twice a week eventually finds a way to slip something like this into conversation: “Bro, you don’t work hard. I just worked a 4700-hour week digging a tunnel under Mordor with a screwdriver.”

> They have a point. Mordor sucks, and it’s certainly more physically taxing to dig a tunnel than poke at a keyboard unless you’re an ant. But, for the sake of the argument, can we agree that stress and insanity are bad things? Awesome. Welcome to programming.

--

This "What kinds of frustration do you enjoy" I believe is a stumbling block for many people looking to enter the work force. I've encountered people in the past who love writing code but hate debugging.

edit: Nice to hear it!

Inheriting a huge mess is harder to love, but refactoring payoffs are huge.

What I will never do again is inherit a huge buggy mess and a boss that wants you to add 5 features to it by the end of the week.

Sadly I was too tall/big (I did a stint in the USAF, once...) Most fighter aircraft are designed for small to medium size fit men up to a maximum of 6'... I was 6'3" and slightly overweight

I kitesurf. You can pick up the F1 of kites for around a grand. It's like being tied to an F1 car. Or go surfing, tech and shapes haven't changed for a few decades. So boards are cheap. Paddle out when it's big. That's a lot of water sloshing around. Being trapped out back on a big day is truly terrifying. And the only way in is to surf one of those waves. Makes my bum-hole tingle just thinking about it.

Fixing bugs and refactoring. They have their perks.

There's a funny perk to bughunting... the amount of time it can take is nondeterministic so you can take breaks during it (they help you find the root cause, anyway, by clearing your head) and nobody will complain. "I'm thinking about the bug! Backburner debugging!"

This is a terrible mindset to have.

What mindset do you propose people have when they want to achieve something exceptionally difficult?

Hard work, hard work and hard work.

Which is why the parent poster said hard work is necessary but not sufficient.

I was honestly shocked to learn how little Jackie Chan is educated -- and how little he wants to be -- despite his tremendous wealth.

Floyd Mayweather disputes this.

In what sense is Hong Kong a colonial hell-hole? (Take this not as a challenge, but as a question from someone who is unfamiliar with the idea.) Is there an underclass trapped there? Do the people in it feel trapped?

Colonial Hong Kong certainly wasn't all rosy. There was certainly vast inequity, but that had to do with global trends of poverty and essentially being almost a second-world economy at the time. Growing up in colonial Hong Kong was alright. Definitely not a "colonial hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

It was the most densely populated place in the world prior to being demolished and dubbed the "City of Darkness".

The original meaning of "second-world" was "behind the iron curtain." Hong Kong's being physically close to communist China might have had certain effects.

Growing up in colonial Hong Kong was alright. Definitely not a "colonial hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive.

As far as I know, Hong Kong is simultaneously wonderful and horrible in the same way New York City and SF are simultaneously wonderful and horrible, only more so in both directions. Given my experiences apartment hunting in SF, and other information, I'd guess that some SF housing would go almost to the same place, were it not for regulations. I've heard of a former housing regulator using his inside knowledge to convert entire houses into tiny "almost" studio apartments, which are technically still rooms.

The article reads like a subliminal hit piece against Jackie Chan.

> Definitely not a "colonial hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive.

It does sound offensive. The article doesn't even try to argue this, either. Those aren't my words either, since I know next to nothing about colonial Hong Kong.

I was just commenting that a series of photos titled "Trapped" about an underclass living in coffin-sized bedrooms in Hong Kong, posted -- not by me, mind you -- in reply to your question "is there an underclass trapped there?" is both eye-opening and remarkably relevant.

Wouldn't you agree?

And I'm sure a lot of that goes on there as well, but it's hard to track for obvious reasons.

I think that summarizes the constant emotional undertones in this article. This article strikes me as a deliberate re-spinning of a story meant to be triumphal, making it the sneakiest hit piece, ever, disguised as a think piece. I would think better of it, were it not for its reliance on such common knowledge preconceptions about "what the Chinese are like."

(Also the French and the British. But that is just what upper-crusty people are like. Human beings are highly hierarchical, and this expresses itself in even the most hardline Marxist states. Even some of the west coast philosopher kings and queens who hang out in places like Big Sur can look down their noses at people with almost no information to prompt it.)

Which is considered by many to be a form of human trafficking. Just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get out of it. I'm not entirely certain where to draw the line.

Wasn't the contract entered into by his parents?

The way I read it, he wasn't able to break free until his early-20s.

Was he kept under lock and key by armed guards willing to main or kill him to keep him from escaping? Or did he primarily think of it as working through a contract his parents had signed him up for?

No one wants children to be sold into servitude. However, the state impinging into family affairs to the point where it can be 100% prevented is essentially making the state the full de-facto guardians of the children. This is the state of affairs where children are informing on their parents to the state.

It's in part up to the parents in a case like this, to determine if what they're doing is selling their children out. That should be a matter of relationships within the family. (Government should be supervising how such business treat and house children. It shouldn't be impinging itself on the relationship between parent and child for any but the most extreme circumstances.)

If so, there's no point debating with you - I find the practice morally reprehensible

Using such debate tactics is dishonest on a few levels. 1) The likelihood that you are talking to someone that reprehensible is rather small 2) The likelihood that you are not exercising the principle of charity and imposing unnecessary emotional toxicity in a nuanced discussion (to your own short-term rhetorical benefit) is rather much larger.

and yes, the systems that make such an arrangement in any way palatable are also reprehensible

There are and always will be a few horrible people who will do that to their own children. Giving over tremendous power to the state over the intimate affairs of absolutely everyone for the sake of preventing rare instances strikes me as hugely unwise. Imagine what the plight of gay teenagers in the past would have been like in an unfriendly regime of such power, where state power reached into family affairs. (Or the plight of such teenagers in totalitarian theocracies today.)

I do understand that the contract was legal. And suspect Chan's parents likely gave it great consideration. Doesn't make the practice, or the circumstances that lead to it, any more palatable to me.

Very often, the reality is quite nuanced. What are your feelings about parents who pressure children to practicing sports or music for long hours from a young age? How is such a school different? At what point should a 3rd party intervene?

Also, it seems to me that in the past (and the present!) gay teenagers had just as much (if not more) to fear from their parents than from the state. Even in totalitarian theocracies, I'd suggest that in such regimes it's often outraged parents that "out" their gay children to the state. I could be wrong.

None of those are contra points.

In these situations, government failure to intervene (and educate, and...) renders legislative protections useless.

No one would disagree that intervention at the level of preventing murder is probably a good idea. I'm sure no one would disagree that intervention by the state at the level of injections of hormones and anti-gay "therapy" would be an overreach. Preventing murder is objectively something the state should do. States that cannot maintain an monopoly on the use of force are failed states. However, the state should intervene as little as possible on things like family life. How much should the state intervene? Answering this question was the purpose of the exercise above, which you apparently missed. Take the policy and power you propose and put it into the hands of the worst state you can imagine. A policy to prevent the murder of children, if practiced correctly, would still be a good thing, even in a theocracy. (Perhaps especially there.) Once you start adding the enforcement of things like social standards and societal mores, then such power looks less palatable in the hands of the state. It's easier to see that if you imagine a horrible state.

Even in totalitarian theocracies, I'd suggest that in such regimes it's often outraged parents that "out" their gay children to the state.

This would also be a tragedy. Children outing their parents to the state would also be a tragedy.

I could be wrong.

Many of your statements are correct. What's to question is your positioning those statements as somehow contradicting my position. They do not.

e.g. in my state in my country we have "no jab, no play" laws to penalise parents (and indirectly, their children) that refuse to vaccinate their kids. Note, that in this example, vaccination is not forced, however there's plenty of stick to "encourage" desired behaviour. I think this is a valid use of the intervention power. Others disagree.

I cannot conceive of any answers that would.

As someone who was a child who was sent away to school by his parents, let me tell you that they matter a great deal. (Particularly from the POV of an adult looking back vs. the experiences of a child.) They are precisely the questions that should be asked to distinguish manipulations of "Think of the children!" hysteria and genuine issues of the human rights of minors.

Is there any answer to your questions that makes indentured servitude of minors acceptable?

Of course not. But I can imagine the level of state power and impingement on private family life needed to prevent that 100%, and that would be quite horrible as well. Government should regulate the conditions under which children are kept and raised by schools. However, the degree to which someone else should decide for parents what to do also needs to take into account the rights of parents and families.

Of course. Read the whole thread as if I think the government should reserve that power. My position is that the government should use such power as sparingly as possible.

There are only two distinct choices - no government power over these conditions and therefore no regulation

False. There is a "dial" here. The question is how much government should intervene. In that, there are far more than 2 choices.

Apologies. I misunderstood and it seems we agree on the fundamental principle that the government should have such power and disagree only on it's extent, as per my other reply to another comment of yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18870396

> False. There is a "dial" here.

Which is exactly what I go on to say in the rest of the sentence you quoted - "...there is broad scope for where the threshold for intervention is set"

I understand what it's like to be sent away to school by one's parents to experience significant hardship. It's not a matter where one should cry out for more state intervention, lightly.

My reply does indeed answer the question, as to the part of the experience of such a child I could understand. In particular, I was severely abused by a classmate, and felt unable to ask for help. I felt a great many things about my experience, and I know this from my personal experience: The POV of the child is truly paramount. It can turn a voluntary contractual experience of privilege into a horrible coercive one, or something that someone might call "indentured servitude" into something positive. It may well be that what appear to be the exact same circumstances are one thing to one child, and the opposite to another, or that it's remembered as a mix of both.

My lived experience tell me this, and in light of that experience, your comments strike me less likely to be a genuine concern for and understanding of those experiences and more as a rhetorical tactic using people's protective feelings towards children.

A further question: Are you performing the same rhetorical tactic that you are telling me that I am performing through your anecdote?

As mortals, our experiences are limited. Having a good imagination and intuition allows us to extrapolate from these limited experiences to better understand the world we live in. Otherwise, discussions would be very limited and stilted indeed. Unless you never join in a discussion that you don't have direct (exact) personal experience in?

Being able to relate to things using personal experience is important. It is equally important to understand when an experience is distinctly different from our own and to be willing to intake new information, including recognizing nuances that causes seemingly-similar situations to become drastically different.

Which is considered by many to be a form of human trafficking.

My own family history has a lot to do with indentured servitude. If you watch Korean historical dramas, you'll find the condition described as being a "servant" but at other times, the same condition will be described as being a "slave."

In terms of being signed up as minors, exactly how do you draw the line? I went to a boarding school where they didn't let us off school grounds without getting leave.

Just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get out of it. I'm not entirely certain where to draw the line.

How about physical coercion? Did 19 year old Jackie Chan consider himself a slave? Was he kept in a place through physical coercion and torture? Did he dream of jailbreaking himself out of his barracks and wire-cutting the fence and running to freedom while being chased by guards prepared to main or shoot him? Or was he thinking of it as working through a contractual debt?

The line should be firmly held at physical coercion. As always, there will be people who skirt the lines by coming up with things that have the same effect, but which are "technically not coercion."

I think minors need to be free to follow the wishes of their parents who are free to exercise authority as guardians. Interfering with that should be a human rights violation. But if the parents wish to send their kids to a boarding school, that has a long history of being a successful way of providing children with an education.

If Chan was sold into servitude by his parents, I think that's de facto slavery, you can't sell the personal autonomy of another person, not even your children.

> How about physical coercion?

Certainly. But there might be trickery involved as well, which should be considered criminal. If I offered you a well-paying job in Dubai, then when you got there told you you were only going to get paid a tenth and further charged you exorbitant rates for food and lodging, that should absolutely be considered trafficking.

I don't have all the answers. But certainly there's more to it than what we'd call kidnapping.

What would you think of a boarding school, where there is a meritocratic selection of child candidates from among primarily underprivileged families? The families that are selected receive a payment. The child is housed, schooled, and given rigorous training in a prestigious performance art.

Is there something in that which is de-facto slavery? Isn't that a description of the circumstances of Jackie Chan's family? I would agree with you, that there is significant potential in such an arrangement for abuses, but it's not a simple black&white situation for instantly considered condemnation.

you can't sell the personal autonomy of another person, not even your children

Parents often override the personal autonomy of their children "for their own good."

I don't have all the answers. But certainly there's more to it than what we'd call kidnapping.

No disagreement.

If this is a public, regulated social institution, then I see no problem with it. I don't want to say that children shouldn't be made to do work, but removing them from a family environment to be exploited absolutely draws the line. I just don't know where precisely to make that legal distinction.

> Parents often override the personal autonomy of their children "for their own good."

And that's fine. We have a fairly good understanding of what constitutes child abuse, it's the removal from the family that needs to be carefully considered.

I would rather live in a society that's free enough for private schools to be established.

I just don't know where precisely to make that legal distinction.

I think we can set objective standards for the housing and treatment of children. Objective standards make it easier for government to adjudicate fairly, and prevent the abuse of power by officials and regulators.

Even so, nothing is perfect.

If these organizations were trying to keep a low profile, then that would be cause for concern.

> I think we can set objective standards for the housing and treatment of children. Objective standards make it easier for government to adjudicate fairly, and prevent the abuse of power by officials and regulators.

We are in agreement on this point. I was merely expressing ignorance of the specific standards that I would consider to be ideal.

I disagree. Mental coercion is a thing. Also, children (and often adults too) don't have the knowledge that there exist alternatives i.e. that they have choices. Denying people that knowledge removes their agency. In the case of children they look to their parents as providers - not just of nurture but of knowledge. They trust them and often accept without question. Should instinct be seen as a failure on the child's part or a conscious agreement/submission to the conditions they are subjected to? If so, then whole areas of jurisprudence concerning minors will have to be re-written.

EDIT: spelling: their/there

No you don't. "The line should be firmly held at physical coercion," is meant as a statement of a baseline minimum. Principle of charity, please.

Mental coercion is a thing. Also, children (and often adults too) don't have the knowledge that there exist alternatives i.e. that they have choices.

Been there. I've been in the position of having a mob, powerful community leaders, and people with police connections arrayed against me, not knowing the law was actually on my side.

EDIT: last sentence - clarified my position.

^ This right here.

There are many things to say about the damages caused by colonialism, but complaining that it's not covered in a book about Chan (who got immensely successful), in Hong Kong (which became very wealthy) in the 1960/70s (while the rest of China was basically burning down) misses the mark. There is a historical context that is quite specific to Hong Kong: the majority of its population actually moved there post-WW2 to escape the troubles on the mainland. Moreover before its decades of unrest, China had been ruled by the Qing, whom most Chinese considered to also be colonisers (the Qing were Manchus who imposed their customs on the Han Chinese majority), so in that regards the British were not some sort of uniquely evil rulers, they were yet another bunch of invaders, who happened to be slightly less violent than the other ones next door.

I think that's why Chan ignored the colonialist angle: it's kind of hard to hate on a city if your family willingly moved there. And yes there is hardship and injustice, but in the rest of China people are either getting purged or are literally dying of hunger. I believe his apolitical view of that era is quite common amongst his generation: yep HK was ruled by some foreigners for a while, next chapter please.

There are some Brits who would tell you that HK developed "thanks to" the UK (I am of the opinion that when a colonised city surpasses even the UK's GDP without being granted any meaningful democratic rights, they succeeded despite your rule, not because of it). This article takes the opposite position but still implies the same thing, that Hong-Kongers were victims with little agency, which I find patronizing when in reality they where a city of refugees who brilliantly navigated a difficult era. Likewise presenting Chan's physical trauma as representative of Hong-Kong's development strikes me as completely off. Lots and lots of people accessed the middle and upper class in the 70s and 80s. Most of them were not stuntmen, it turns out. I must say this is the first Western review I see of this book, and it's the first one that brings colonialism up seemingly out of nowhere. There is a little bit of "Chan's story is not really about him, it's about... us! the Western people" euro-centrism here, IMHO.

Also, since everyone is naming their favourite Jackie Chan movie, have a look at Project A and Project A2, they're a lot of fun (A2 actually tackles some colonialism-related topics in passing).

Democracy is often cited as economically advantageous, but as Singapore demonstrates, authoritarian dictatorships are not necessarily fated to economic ruination. Sometimes authoritarian dictatorships do better than they would have under democratic rule. The trick to democracy is the results are more consistently in the middle; it's not as likely to go catastrophically wrong, but it's also not as likely to go spectacularly well. That's why we generally prefer it; it's the same reason we generally prefer compensation in the form of paychecks instead of lottery tickets. Sometimes people who play the lottery win, and sometimes authoritarian governments are effective governments.

Hong Kong during the colonial era might be another example of an non-democratic regime actually performing well. Or maybe not, I don't really know. It's hard to run a "parallel Hong-Kong experiment" to find out for sure.

If you get hurt, you are out, and you are checking gates for 12 hours a day or go regular infantry. Yes, there are second chances, but that's another story.

Sammo starred as the master in a film about the school

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_Faces

It sort of stands to reason that it has to be that way, too, for the whole system to work. Chan is able to be the celebrity that he is, specifically because there's only one of him; if there were dozens or hundreds of people like him, he wouldn't have the same kind of fame. Celebrity depends on singularity.

It's absolute nonsense to say that "If he could do it...anyone can"; it's demeaning and cruel to the many people who were, like him, stuck in a terrible situation, but didn't have his good luck in getting out.

You are the one demeaning the people there. Chan is the one inspiring them.

It's silly to think that everybody in Hong Kong is going to compare themselves to Jackie Chan and lament that they won't be able to do what he does. He's inspirational because he shows that you don't have to define yourself by your station in life and can change it. Chan is just the most visible symbol of it, but you can see similar stories all across the country.

Your daughter getting inspired by princesses isn't cruel because she'll never be able to be a princess. She can become more like a particular princess she likes, adopting personality traits and learning to think like her.

Using phrases like that excuses a system that keeps people oppressed by pointing to the outliers who manage to escape them. It's the old "lift yourself up by your bootstraps" argument.

We should recognize and change the system, not point people to the outliers and say "See, you can do it too!"

Chan's memoir can be inspirational, but we can also read into it - as the article does - and recognize the oppressive system and his luck in escaping it.

Heroes have a place, precisely because they inspire.

I get what you're saying, but in any system having an aspirational role model is a benefit!

I'm deeply skeptical of this. I don't want to assume your background, so please don't take offense to this. But I can only imagine someone is able to seriously believe this if they've never had anything more challenging than their own self-actualization and ambition.

You can (and should) believe in yourself as fiercely as you'd like! But the blunt reality is that hunger, poverty, disease and a lack of familial support structure will break you down unless you're astronomically lucky. If the most difficult thing stopping you from achieving your goals is your own belief in your ability to do it, you're in an exceptionally privileged position.

I think we miss the forest for the trees on HN quite a lot. The modal commenter here is most likely to be affluent with respect to their local environment and wealthy with respect to the world. We don't often have people commenting here to share experiences of the real obstacles someone like Jackie Chan had to deal with growing up.

The manner in which they break most people down is by circumscribing ambition and self confidence.

A large part of my family goes into the hills of dirt poor mining Appalachia, so I wouldn't say I'm speaking to this from a privileged position.

When no one in your family has ever gone to college, why would you even think you could? Or have a different profession than your father? Or start a business? Or move to another town? Etc. etc.

There are certainly structural roadblocks that make things easier or harder, but I have yet to see someone succeed in something they never start. And a large reason they never start is because they don't believe they could ever succeed.

And that was my point. That heroes help us dare to believe, moreso that we otherwise would.

I think this is the crux of the difference in viewpoint between you and who you're responding to:

> I have yet to see someone succeed in something they never start

It's reasonable to say that the will/drive/impetus/etc. to succeed is _necessary_ for success.

And because it is necessary, it's good to have heroes — makes sense to me.

But the other fellow is saying that while it may be necessary, it is not _sufficient_.

If you never play the lotto, you'll never win, it's true. But just because you do play doesn't mean you'll win either. Playing is necessary, but not sufficient.

How much you think it's valuable to parade around the winners and say "this could be you!" is, I think, proportional to how much you think an individual has control over the game they're playing.

For the lottery, it's easy to show that you have zero control, so parading around the winners (or "heroes") is a bit silly. For other types of success, it's less clear. But there is certainly a decent argument to be made that liklihood of overcoming structural and institutional biases is luck-heavy. If you think it's mostly luck, then hero-worship is not so valuable.

Certainly the biggest heroes in improving the human condition are not the successful outliers like Chan, but those who believe in equality and put the work toward furthering it. There is no slavery in the US any more, and the thanks for that does not lie with outlier heroes who happened to luck out in the slavery game.

I will say there is a benefit but whether it's a net benefit is not always true as we can't ignore the downsides.

For example, if everyone believes that you can just work hard and succeed, then they may choose to ignore the great disadvantages certain people have. Indeed this isn't just a philosophical issue as this is the reality even in American politics with regard to having social programs.

I think this is actually even true of people whose stories qualify them to become "heroes". Often because they were able to do something they think it must be possible for everyone else without realizing how many things were working in their favor. There's a psychological phenomenon describing how people who went through the same experience as you are actually less likely to help you because for whatever reason, they seem to remember it was being easier than it was.

The issue I had, and why I originally commented, is it seemed people were being intellectually dishonest in denying any benefits of aspirational heroes, because they felt doing so would lend approval to an unjust system.

Which seemed... incomplete and unfair. Both to the heroes (Chan deserves better than to have some New Republic writer denying Chan's opinion of his own life's work) and to the people whose life might be changed by having a hero.

In reality, we can work towards both greater equality of opportunity AND highlight aspirational heroes.

I don't want to ascribe motivation, but I wonder how many people casting stones have ever been so down and out that they can't even imagine any success in their lives. Because I feel that's the reality for a lot of people in truly bad situations. And when you've given up trying to improve your life...?

If you or I went over to Hong Kong, and told them to work hard and they'll succeed, then get in my private jet and fly back to the US, they'd just roll their eyes. But Jackie Chan is one of them. He understands the culture and the challenges. All famous people do for their audiences.

I think we agree with you regarding the inspiration that Chan brings to his people.

There is more than inspiration, sweat, tears, and blood that plays the part of viral success as Chan has achieved. Luck and opportunity are the missing pieces.

The phrase "if Chan can do it then anyone can" is victim to survivorship bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)

To conclude: Chan achieved awesome things, he's an inspiration, it's good for others to strive for success, success is not determined on hard work alone.

Yes, you need luck and opportunity to become Jackie Chan. But there's more ways to be successful than becoming Jackie Chan. He can inspire them to be themselves and not let their situations get them down.

That's what is meant by "anyone can do it." Not anyone can be Jackie Chan. But anybody can use the same inner tools that Chan did that got him famous, and chart the course of their own life. That's what's inspirational.

What inner tools were those? From the article, it seems that it was a willingness to do extreme, mortally-dangerous stunts? Is that the lesson people should take away–forget about being successful unless you're willing to constantly put your life on the line?

Something like that. It's up to you what you want to take from it. But inspiration is such that you might not be inspired to follow the example directly, but you can use the example to find some other kind of courage to display.

For example, your company may need someone to do some really dirty task that no one wants to do. If you step up to the plate, that creates an opening for something greater to happen.

Instead you and everyone else just compare themselves to him like you deserve his success. That's what's really going on here.

Kim Kardashian is indeed inspiring to a certain generation of kids. You can't see her as inspirational for the same reason, because you don't think she deserves the success but you do.

I also find it quite funny to be psychoanalyzed on a discussion forum, although admittedly I've been doing that to an extent with Jackie Chan. In my defence I can say that he's a published author, and this kind of analysis is part and parcel of literary critiques. Your efforts to paint me as jealous of Jackie Chan and Kim Kardashian are, frankly, pretty funny. Maybe step away from Hacker News for a day or so? :-D

I suppose it is easier to write and also easier to dismiss other people doing something you simply don't want to put in the effort to do so or are too scared to do.

of course this is just my observation

Of course you do, that's called survivorship bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

You see the one person who tried to seize the opportunity and succeeded, because by succeeding they became famous. You don't see all the people who tried just as hard to seize the opportunity and failed, because by failing they remained obscure.

I would guess: no. Say we could map out every decision Chan made to get where he is. Let's also say we could quantify exactly how "hard" he worked.

To me, it follows that some of those decisions were likely pivotal in his success, even if they didn't seem like it at the time. And that some of the other decisions he could have made weren't obviously wrong decisions, or wouldn't even have decreased the quantified hardness he worked. But maybe making a different decision just one of those times (or maybe two, or three, or some manageable number) would have resulted in Chan toiling away in obscurity, despite trying so hard.

It seems reasonable to me to suggest that someone else attempting a parallel path as Chan, given similar starting conditions, might have made a few different decisions here and there, all of them involving equally hard work, but the outcome may have been nowhere near as good. So what do we call the cause of Chan's better outcome? Foresight? Better decision-making? Or just luck?

That ... I would bet money on.

So your observation is that because they seized the opportunity and did what it takes to succeed means luck wasn't involved?

Most of the times people who advocate for oppression are the people who benefits out of it. Like the caste system in India or slavery elese where

China was extremely poor and now it is extremely rich as a mass phenomenon. It is not like a Gulf power in which a tiny elite of owners presiding over an army of imported indentures. Like any society in history there is inequality, but you have to be an insane ideologue to deny the reality of mass advancement in standard of living in China during the 20th and 21st century so far.

Unrelated, but I suppose this is why there is so much controversy and disagreement as to whether Floyd Mayweather actually is the greatest boxer ever (which he himself has claimed multiple times he is), as he puts so much effort into not getting hit (and some say he runs away from opponents, only fights them before or after their prime, never during their prime). But he does have that 50-0 record.

This is almost tautologically true. Who starts fighting because they want to avoid getting hit at all costs?

The author wants to examine _why_ Chan drives himself, over and over, to the brink of life-threatening injuries, while we HN commenters - most of us anyway - do not. He fairly persuasively argues that it's a mix of extreme C-PTSD, childhood abandonment, economic destitution, and a near total lack of alternative opportunities.

Can that still be inspiring? To whom? To do what? These are the questions the author wants to ask. We can quibble over the answers. But either way, I find this type of critical perspective more intellectually provocative than taking Chan's plain-faced recollection for granted.

I think you have this exactly backward. He took the risks not knowing they would make him an international star. I submit that he only could have done that if he enjoyed not just the fruits, but the process. Several times he describes volunteering for things others wouldn't do. You wouldn't do that if you weren't at least indifferent, if not eager, to confront the danger.

> Several times he describes volunteering for things others wouldn't do.

But he also describes several times in the book about worrying what others think of him. He worries about how he will be perceived by his director, how he'll be judged by the public.

> You wouldn't do that if you weren't at least indifferent, if not eager, to confront the danger.

He literally describes in the book how he doesn't want to die.

Probably neither of us has the full measure of Jackie Chan, but I for one find it hard to believe in the picture of the happy-go-lucky daredevil action star.