News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Hard is not defensible (2017) by YeGoblynQueenne on Thursday July 09, 2020 @01:24PM (#23782603)
>> It’s unrealistic to think that you’ll ever have a totally unique insight, let alone one other people couldn’t come up with if they really wanted to.

These gentlemen would beg to disagree:

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

Before the Wrights, numerous others had tried and failed to achieve what they achieved. Of course, once the Wrights succeeded (or rather, some time after) their idea was free for the taking. But the Wrights did have a "unique insight" that was only their own.

Re:Hard is not defensible (2017) by 013a on Thursday July 09, 2020 @02:43PM (#23783560)
The article says its unrealistic; not that its impossible.

Its unrealistic to tell every star High School athlete that they'll become the next million-dollar NFL player. But, its not impossible; in fact, they bring on million-dollar players every year. The point isn't that its impossible; its that its improbable.

Re:Hard is not defensible (2017) by gen220 on Thursday July 09, 2020 @01:54PM (#23782968)
Tangentially-addressed in the PS at the bottom:

> PS. My colleague Zefi Hennessy Holland raised an insightful point about hard to find market secrets that I can’t phrase better myself.

>

> He said ‘If Math Hard is finding the solution to a problem many people know about, Market Hard means finding an industry problem that few people know about through a lot of hard work… Your competition can copy your moves but not the underlying insights that made you make them.’

Re:Hard is not defensible (2017) by NoOneNew on Thursday July 09, 2020 @01:58PM (#23783031)
Uh... free for the taking is not exactly right. They patented the shit out of it. Look up the "Wright brothers patent war" they waged world wide for licensing fees. It took WW1, with the USA extremely far behind in aircraft innovation, for the gov to end their patent trolling adventure.