I got three lines.

I realized half-way through that I had to get into a totally-different mindset than normal Tetris.

Normally, if the game gives you the wrong piece, you can put it where it will do the least damage for your current plans, and wait patiently for a better piece.

What you have to realize in this one is that the game will never give you the piece you want, if it has any option of giving you a worse one.

And so you have to play this like a Chess puzzle: how can I checkmate the game so that any piece it gives me will finish a line? How can I force it to either give me a piece that can fit in a 1x1 hole in the middle, or just give me 2x2 squares and I can complete the row with those.

It's quite different and fun when you think like that.

I also noticed the same thing - when I was making progress and got a particularly bad piece, the Tetris part of my brain thinks "I'll just put this out of the way for now".

Hatetris then gives me the same piece again. I think again: "I'll just put this out of the way for now"

I found it impossible to overcome this habit before running out of space.

> I found it impossible to overcome this habit before running out of space.

There's some "tetris is life" wisdom in there.

I'd wondered about this. Baseball pitchers don't throw the worst pitch every time; you'd be expecting it. There has to be game theory here, too. Thanks for articulating it.

Maybe, but its not giving you the piece that worst on average, just the piece that is worst for the given situation. Well, tries to anyway.

Often they end up being the same, but not always. Tile the S's in a row and it will give you a cube because the s would let you complete the line.

Thanks, that was a very helpful comment. I had to reason backwards from "in what situation I'm guaranteed a line", and then, how do I get there. I was able to get 4 lines with a few tries. Here's my base2048 encoded game

ஜɧࢩݥҬuళࡑ௨ټถݹƓقฐࡑ௧ʝÐݶԨքଈݪݫට༨ஈடΟໃʮzටఴঅ୦Ѯໃa௨৫ІܝԥചWђߝsลஈமϺບઞzජТஈߝકІݜҫඨƖݷಏقКחಎؾɑݛkЂϼ०తನլݢသ૫ØঐಳUಮщ౻ऊԀঙങఢVםષථϭŋɼԻహҵ

You had the right idea, but you can tweak it to get 6: ಞজໃݎฆঘໃݞഢsງڣ௨uІݮతටଘݸభඨƙђࢲҨະࡉɷƥȣKϡuЅਘௐքධݹࠒѻІݚݸටไऄமҔ༨ຣҫටถݹଗقຣऄϥןUਘ௨ටॾ୶Ɛටไࡉɶٴलݹસඪܔঅࢳ൳Uॿԫƥϼঔଗ෮ຜࡀƶ

Not sure I would call it fun. Combine this with rubik’s cube solver robot, AI, smart contracts, AR/VR, neuralink and this could be daily life for everyone in the year 2030.

Rubik’s cube solver robot: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZBP0n6yeQo

I got 5 lines. Experimented quite a bit. Trick is to build on vertical (if that makes any sense) and to try to keep open places for all types of pieces.

Same here. You can absolutely fill up the board in a way where there's almost no problematic sections, and then suddenly it's like. ok, well, no lines for you.

I got like 5 lines I think.

Or that, at scale, there really could be many people that will actually land tails on ten consecutive coin tosses.

And we often kinda say, ‘hey that’s life’.

I remember on the old RRRR one somebody got 99, but most people couldn't get one line

I have a quote for you:

If Tetris has taught me anything it's that errors pile up and accomplishments disappear.

> It kept giving me S pieces and threw a Z in there and then an l

"Line piece. Line piece. Line piece. LINE PIECE!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alw5hs0chj0

I have to verify my age for that... Duh!

Same. I refuse to give google my credit card details or ID for this. I've been on Youtube for about 13 years with this account, I'd have to have been 5 or less to not be old enough to view whatever I want now... What garbage.

They don't accept your birthdate without a credit card or ID? Wow.

Seems to be a new "feature". I'm also getting this as of an hour ago! Pretty stupid if you ask me, since my account is linked to all my Android devices, where I have Google Play installed and have purchased apps with a CC, so verifying my CC again seems to be lazy or greedy on their part. Alternately submitting a photo ID says it may take up to 3 days to verify. We really need a YouTube competitor sooner than later.

Huh, so I clicked on make account and when I checked the "english instances" box, the first item in the instance list changed to Chinese. Guess that checkbox doesn't work so well.

It randomises the order. “English instances” just filters out instances which do not list English as a language; that doesn't mean English is the primary language of the instances that are left.

There are plenty of alternatives, try Newpipe on Android. Just another youtube client without the google source.

What about Windows? I hardly ever watch anything on my phone, the screen is much too small to be enjoyable. I just mean that since big G owns all of these products and happily links other preferences, they should also be able to link my CC.

Those are the only two options they presented me with...

youtube-dl to the rescue!

(also never knew about that video, but it's great indeed)

Still one of my favorite videos ten years on. Always fun to see a fresh posting of it in the wild. :D

2008-2010 collegehumour was great

Well here is the soundtrack...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFG3J1CP8

Compete History of the Soviet Union, arranged to the music of Tetris. Pigwiththefaceofaboy.

There is an essay like that - https://medium.com/the-mission/your-life-is-tetris-stop-play...

And here's my rebuttal to it - https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/01/for-some-people-life-is-har...

I'd suggest that life is neither Chess nor Tetris, it's Magic the Gathering:

- You have to learn to relentlessly blame yourself for the mistakes you make, but also to accept that you can't change everything, and sometimes you WILL lose to random luck, no matter what you do.

- Actually understanding probability goes a long way.

- Regrettably, a large chunk of the game depends on your initial hand.

... and sometimes your opponent can just afford a better deck than you.

This is perhaps why Magic the Gathering is a better metaphore for life than Poker, which also has the elements above, but not this one.

Although with poker you have the house that always wins...

- Wizzards of the coast will take all your lunch money.

No, wait.

But actually true.

Which is probably why my favourite card game is now Dominion - everybody has the exact same starting position and access to resources. Too bad it doesn't extrapolate to the life analogy.

>In life, your only opponent is yourself.

This argument reminds me of people who try to deny things like white privilege by describing how hard they had to work to get where they are now. Yeah, well, for a lot of people working hard (or not) isn't the only important factor that's determining their odds of success. That's the privilege...

I hate the framing of 'privilege', because it portrays these things as some special. unfair advantage, rather than other groups having a unfair disadvantage. You could say that poor people are 'housing privileged' as homeless people have it even worse, but I think it's absolutely clear what an awful thing that would be to say.

Being rich, famous or well-connected, that is 'real' privilege and should rightfully be called out. Not having to fear encounters with the police, not being discriminated in regards to employment or not being harassed on the streets are fundamental rights. Even if you don't care about being sensitive, telling people that they are privileged for having these is just so obviously counterproductive.

In a global perspective, it’s defined privilege if you are a white male in Europe or North America. You already have more opportunities than 99% of the world population.

But I wouldn’t use the words unfair advantage. Most of us didn’t cheat or do anything immoral to be born in this position, and trying to make our lives worse won’t help anyone else. The point isn’t to try to make us feel bad (not how I interpret it at least), but that we try to remember that we are very lucky people being born into this position, and that the overwhelming majority were less lucky than we are.

I think the term “privilege” was coined on purpose to flip the viewpoint and make us think about life in others’ shoes. “What you consider normal life is something they can only dream of”

I don’t think it’s meant to be a serious description of the situation

It is a really bad framing except when used on the original context, that is interacting with the kind of people that blame poverty on the poor life choices.

People using it to refer people that aren't acting like assholes should indeed drop that wording. It does nothing but antagonize people.

It sure sounds like you're the one being overly sensitive given that you're describing two equivalent states of affair and finding one of them offensive because you don't the words attached to it.

Well of course, there's a difference in connotation of blame between "privileged" and "disadvantaged", even if they both refer to the same relative difference. It's as if the terminology of "privileged" is purposefully trying to offend.

It is. The -point- of the term is to reverse the usual dynamic between the privileged and the disadvantaged. What that dynamic is depends on whether you see the categories in this comparison as only two (the haves and the have-nots) or three (including a "normal" category which lies somewhere between the two), or perhaps as a spectrum (where privileged and disadvantaged arguably lie at the extremes of the bell curve).

I'm saying I consider it insensitive to not care what effect your choice of words has on how people perceive things. If you think that makes me 'overly sensitive', then I'd recommend reflecting a bit on who is hurt by bad messaging. And if you don't believe me that it's bad messaging, just look up the studies on the effects of framing racial inequality as privilege.

Ah those humans with their sunny day privileges. Don't you think about all those who live in the UK?

>That's the privilege...

Only experienced by white people of course which also by your implication are incapable of experiencing

>Yeah, well, for a lot of people working hard (or not) isn't the only important factor that's determining their odds of success

It's great you lead a privileged enough life you've never had to interact with poor struggling white people before.

Thanks for proving my point. I assume at this point that people who still don't understand the concept of privilege are being deliberately obtuse, so I'm not going to bother with you. The information is out there. You can choose to make an effort to understand or not.

I think the point is that whole collectively one group may be more privileged, people are individuals and not a collective.

For example a black child born into extreme or moderate wealth is undoubtedly more privileged than a white child that is orphaned at a young age.

This is also known as an ecological fallacy [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy

Conditionality is applied in the concept: Privilege is essentially the difference in outcomes ascribed to two otherwise identical people due to a particular disadvantage that members of one group suffer but members of the other group don't.

There is always statistical outliers in any large data set, but they don't affect the median value significantly.

This is in no way a rebuttal to what they said. The point is that privilege very well may exist and be a valid concept surrounding an aggregate, but be a invalid tool for comparing individuals.

Who's using it to compare individuals? The entire discussion revolves around populations and institutions.

Perhaps the only thing that life is, is life, and tetris is a slightly less-wrong metaphor than chess?

Best I could do is five lines, and even that felt like it was because the game was optimized to prevent "any line now" rather than "any lines in future".

Method: If you lay the "s" pieces on their tip, next to each other horizontally, starting from one side, when you get to having a gap of two left on the other side, it changes to giving you line pieces. You can then lay these line pieces horizontally on top of the s pieces to create a full "wall" eight blocks wide all the way to the top. Then start filling in the two-wide column to start making lines. Best this seems to give is five.

Has anyone made it to six? Is it possible?

Edit: after reading more of the comments here, I see the high score is 31!!! Wow, didn't expect that -- it is neat to watch it through:

௨ഖƌݯߜࠏІWƑsໃa௨೯ܘݷಳජଈیԪؼʥݺԥඞܘݲࠐڄໂঅமةໃݹ௧ړІٽ௨൞ໃZ௨ಘІܥࠐΣІZߜටȜখذජНݹߛeʛݹߤปເѧ௩ԚໂՉࢸටuа௨સȣݷłقෆঅਏeܘԔצقషݸɢڠຜঀಧҸມѧஐට༪൩ԊಅഫܡथsถԡԦԚໃɥஸقࡈɕɠɈไݸצقషݰਵϺФঅஓػݐɓԞуຯɕझࡈ๐ݞझࢶІݞमปദஈƉؿଭݪஸҩЂ൸ԛمϦGƁҨVھԥචЅշࡂ෮लݷƘණ໘ࠅƘಧНקࢻҨฆӘದԋϝପࠑ੧ͳݲடփරݞਵΚϼɢԒԺٳѦԤࠌξGಘسਯܥஶҋϮτथlϼʔ

Got to 6!

హइໃџИටଛڭ௧پಭݪбඩಸݞహࡄȤເ௨ඤʈঅஜѸໃѣۑචʈஆಏ੬ܯཧ૭ටໞݹਓsະࠇஶƣฅяడقແߛ௨ೱٱݸಳ൞ະࢭ௨ඞНݷహइЖݪ௧چະঀ౻ටПݸԫ૫ଠݹ౻ಅໄ൰ళҸཟࢭলฃฅॾవඩಸܭСࡏVپƏοSྌਔ

And here's 7

ฆࡄາໃݣඪජݹಏ૫ຊरಗق༨൪صඨʐএЩටลڝ௨෨ଈݚЩචƙɕࢳ৩ฅڥࢲටະࠇ௨ٴໃɛ௨ٴແߛ௨൞ໃק௧ڠງƷஶكɑݹத෮ແࢭ௧ຂຽஈਢචƚܥ௨ۼถݷಏقܧɒԩঘญகϡࡆϿߟƑؾϿॻ౦ʜວॿޠظܪܦ౻ॸࠋ

That's awesome (and props to the creator for including such a convenient replay system) :)

This shows that 8 is possible :)

Ɣঔໃݹஐټຯپ௧এІK௨ಗາɢƏࡈາɕƔןІJ௧ڠຽঅসඞݕݹமΒІυݸටຯວ௨ටȣƫ௨ඖІܥ௨ౚഫݹđҨSঅரեໃƫ௨൝ධݛࠑಧషҪࡐԊໂƷஓҸգǶߜඖڪڤ௨డลГଚ౾κʥࢳॴ༱uझٯฦܥƑȺیюಳϾຯஞ௧ڈ๓ଖಱலะCஐشڛઝѻਯϝລ

I got so many S pieces in a row that I was beginning to think it was just a joke and that was the only possible piece

Same thing until it pulled the old switcheroo - real annoying!

Second time I got a 4 line game in. I appreciate the total change in thinking required to do well in the game.

And the very moment I was about to go aha and score a line, a reverse S came! >_<

There are a few "Tetris is life" essays out there. One I enjoyed: https://zachsnyderproductions.medium.com/8-life-lessons-ive-...

For about the same amount of years, I have thought of my life as playing multiple Tetris games at the same time. Some games moving at different speeds, depending on what's happening at the time on each. I'd focus my priority on the fastest moving games, without discarding the other (slower) games, since accumulation is non-stop.

...and yes, in my spare time (at times), I play multiple tetris games, but since I haven't found one that runs multiple games, I have to run many different windows--so I don't do it very often.

Anybody know of a Tetris game that allows you to add multiple games at the same time? That'd be awesome!

Are you familiar with Twinbeard's Futiltris? You'll need Flash to play it these days, but I always found it really entertaining.

[0] http://twinbeard.com/140_futilitris [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab62aohgpKI

Got 3 lines.

Moral of the story - S pieces are the worst possible pieces.

Wow, like every time I grab the old gameboy and play some rounds of tetris I just think the very same thing: tetris is a wonderful anology for life. And of course I did not expect someone else to think the same. Thank you! :)

> Anyway, this game of (ha)Tetris is a lot like a lot of people's lives, just roadblock after roadblock.

They should make a multiplayer version where you could pass the pieces you don't like to other players!

Relevant parts of the Wikipedia article linked to by parent:

> Tetris 99 is a multiplayer puzzle game in which 99 players play against each other at the same time, with the aim to be the last player remaining. [...] As with normal Tetris rules, players have the option to store a tetromino piece to swap out at any time. By clearing multiple lines or performing continuous line clears in a row, players can send "garbage" to other players, which will appear on their board unless they can quickly clear lines in response. More garbage can be sent by completing combination moves in succession of making a "tetris" (matching 4 lines at once) or performing a "T-spin" (squeezing the T-shaped tetromino into a position it would otherwise not fall into by rapidly rotating it).

Tetrinet. I haven’t played it in 20 years or have any idea if the code is maintained, but that’s what you’re looking for.

I just came here to ask how does it know it's giving you the worst possible piece. And I find this.

:shakes head:

I believe that it may analyze the board for all possible piece placements for all pieces and then choose the piece that provides the least good solution.

Thanks. It's actually explained in the link on the github page after all. I just missed it the first time. It's what you say basically:

The method by which the AI selects the worst possible piece is extremely simple to describe (test all possible locations of all possible pieces, see which of the pieces' best-case scenarios is the worst, then spawn that worst piece), but quite time-consuming to execute, so please forgive me if your browser chugs a little after locking each piece. If you can figure out a way to accelerate the algorithm without diminishing its hate-filled efficiency, do let me know. The algorithm for "weighing" possibilities is to simply maximise the highest point of the "tower" after the piece is landed.

The author says that the algorithm couldn't be changed without invalidating the replays so I'm guessing that means it's a deterministic algorithm. Judging from the comment about "weighing" possibilities (which I interpret as evaluating boards) I'm further guessing it's an ad-hoc implementation of Best-First Search. In that case, I suspect its performance could be improved quite a bit by replacing it with a Monte Carlo search. But as the author fears, that would definitely invalidate replays (you'd get slightly different results each time).

Another optimisation is some kind of prunning heuristic- some kind of intuition about which pieces P don't need to be considered once a certain piece S has been rejected as the worst possible, because those other pieces P can only yield better boards then S (better for the player). No idea what that heuristic would look like, but the result would stay the same so the replays could still run as before.

An interesting challenge might be to make an "offline" version. How difficult a randomizer can you make without being able to see the player's board?

You'd lay down some rules such as "the pieces must theoretically have an even distribution over some period" and "piece sequences must come probabilistically and not hard coded."

You could then objectively test the randomizer by pitting a standardized bot against it.

the link goes straight to the source code... why not just look at it instead of guessing

I assume you did as you advise, so I'm happy for you to explain how it works.

Here's a replay with four: ॠڅܕଘळطЫݎ௧ڠແझ३ටիઉ౬ѲໃҲɷඤwঅஓڠເ੪ϢඞПݹਹɈຽঅதڗІށ௨౾Іނ௨୮າএƐඉƊݲడقঀஈஜɜາঌ௧ปบदਹؼƟԿЬඦƊݹݦਮȜƏஓڄຯࡑ୦ΟරݞԪػଅޅޛٮഫɞϯغȣßಣϷМѠ౫7

You have to try to sacrifice some lines in order to get guaranteed lines.

Here's one with 6: РڠໃמୡඤVŦலڄໃݲథɊІށ௨ಘQɕ௫ҨໃυɷඞМǶ௨ళɱݹ୦Οຯ൫௩ƦഫJமϺຽߢ௧uܘܭЬ௨൧ݹಈඤʆٻҳචHݹಏටฅکҿࡄแחजலາƷ௧οາঐ௧চІͷ௨ౚໃŧԥఠܕɕϢ෯ƚݢƐٮඍԣரಀԀສߜƣƬѣݫΝթֆଔ

I suspect that there's some pathological behavior in the game you can exploit to possibly get a line or more while giving up a line (not that I searched and identified one, I think I just got lucky on my second game because I don't play tetris much so didn't have much of a strategy to unlearn). It would be interesting if there a few of these behaviors that lead into each other, which could lead to a stable state of infinite lines.

Not being random means there might be more to exploit.

Yeah you can game it to fill in upper levels because it seems to greedily avoid letting you complete the next 1 row.

Here's a game with 7:

ԫقຽࡨதقลƻஸปໃɡЩටʈम౻ටիঅஶΟໃࡦѻ೯ܘݪ௨൜ІݚɪؾÐݪߜගІסञඉȣݣ౫ඞУݸԫؼПݒ౺sܪݚஶsԀŦਛfΔݹटɈເљࠑಜÐݶɺටळ൪ԪؾЂɚலڌෆࡨࢸదQॡభඝଘݒಈలНމࢲඖИܭޜϻϨॷభĐ

8: ౚටරଳ௨ಗҾђञఢІŦଛقࠂɜ௨ఢVʣƃڠࠃʦذਓງஈ௧vഫݹযуಮɜटطϼƷ౻ඝЈஈ௩ΣܘŦ૧ට๒ݹଢඈฆŧذࡄɱݸϢరμŦௐؼVϳ௧৩ะݹ௨૫ຣ૨ரڴТߣ௧ڒІŒɷഗƖԤݛஶՀݮ൙൶ຯݷ౧Փຯబ௩ʡWђƓעXݪݖضɑЈԎϺثॿƖ੪СجƕןÞڍ۰Ռ

A little searching and I found this: https://tetris.fandom.com/wiki/Hatetris#High_score which includes a replay for a high score of 31, which I've added below.

31: ௨ഖƌݯߜࠏІWƑsໃa௨೯ܘݷಳජଈیԪؼʥݺԥඞܘݲࠐڄໂঅமةໃݹ௧ړІٽ௨൞ໃZ௨ಘІܥࠐΣІZߜටȜখذජНݹߛeʛݹߤปເѧ௩ԚໂՉࢸටuа௨સȣݷłقෆঅਏeܘԔצقషݸɢڠຜঀಧҸມѧஐට༪൩ԊಅഫܡथsถԡԦԚໃɥஸقࡈɕɠɈไݸצقషݰਵϺФঅஓػݐɓԞуຯɕझࡈ๐ݞझࢶІݞमปദஈƉؿଭݪஸҩЂ൸ԛمϦGƁҨVھԥචЅշࡂ෮लݷƘණ໘ࠅƘಧНקࢻҨฆӘದԋϝପࠑ੧ͳݲடփරݞਵΚϼɢԒԺٳѦԤࠌξGಘسਯܥஶҋϮτथlϼʔ

small improvement to your solution, 9: సقໂɜ௨ഗƊݺɷටЖݹযמຽঅ௧ปໃঅਓsຯɜ௧ࡆଈŧԥටȤ൫௧ڈໃܘ௨කІԾ௨ඝІԘ௨ಳଈݰ௨൲ຣݹஜɦܗɚ௧ปลഴஐٯүݚ௩ظݕܥ౫ಀۻࡨஶԛɒঅਏڏІŧۑڐසђߥѲಊݷѻइࢳݪޜപࡊ०ணගɛܡ౦ಬҾɚ౫ఢʂډױ3

this one is pretty brilliant

Another 6: ఢ૫ໃυޛඞਖࡨௐงເƍ౫൶ลٽ௨౾ІJ௮ටСݺԊق໐ɞ௨൜షݸ౻ටܬݹԪࡄถࡨ௭ඞФॡஸػʒஆಒ෩ಸݹࢳටଜݶౚ൜ਈމ௧෬ІھƐೲໄߢসࡆІݚɷ൜ປ൴ƋٯຯРமҔПܢமɈܢܭԤڌฅٽߤఏە

Agree it is like chess.

The world record from 2017 is 31. "௨ഖƌݯߜࠏІWƑsໃa௨೯ܘݷಳජଈیԪؼʥݺԥඞܘݲࠐڄໂঅமةໃݹ௧ړІٽ௨൞ໃZ௨ಘІܥࠐΣІZߜටȜখذජНݹߛeʛݹߤปເѧ௩ԚໂՉࢸටuа௨સȣݷłقෆঅਏeܘԔצقషݸɢڠຜঀಧҸມѧஐට༪൩ԊಅഫܡथsถԡԦԚໃɥஸقࡈɕɠɈไݸצقషݰਵϺФঅஓػݐɓԞуຯɕझࡈ๐ݞझࢶІݞमปദஈƉؿଭݪஸҩЂ൸ԛمϦGƁҨVھԥචЅշࡂ෮लݷƘණ໘ࠅƘಧНקࢻҨฆӘದԋϝପࠑ੧ͳݲடփරݞਵΚϼɢԒԺٳѦԤࠌξGಘسਯܥஶҋϮτथlϼʔ"

Astonishing! I love it.

I managed to get 5: ௬চІݪݹටຽࠇ௨රІݪشॴເເƕؿ٠ܥ౻ഡϿߢ௧กȤڥƐඨɱݺƔقහݹࠉඦТ൫௮ࡄරࢲԥට༥ݹࠔقฮݹஓپଈKƐൽЫݚɷಪІݎ౫ඨIƬޛගƸݰಏஶເםݮقไࡨறۊసໃ௧Οࠕࠄېୱ೦ݶћؾƔݷɘ੬ÐԴযϺƛԾతࡕ

I managed 7: ౚටໃࡈ௧ࡆໃށɷಘƬݎసغƔܭɷටܤݹઽॴແࠇభගÐҲƏڠໃק௨хଈݪƐڠຈݚ୶ටງங௨ඉʃݹலڌໃए௨ڐໃऍ௩Ѯ༩ކѲƤЈஈ௧څȣݺޔلໄєذ൝ܘɡ௰ࢲДם୦ΟଠܭݗॵÐࢣ௮ඪ

That was a fun watch. You're really good at this!

Absolutely love the playback feature.

This is a great analogy, I might have to steal it.

Your analogy suggests that life is 100% luck. Not everything in life is handed to you through luck like Tetris pieces falling from the sky. Your medical degree is largely dependent on you studying, working hard and finally clearing the requirements. Definitely a few shitty pieces to deal with though. It keeps things interesting. Most people revel in building their own blocks and not relying on stuff that falls from the sky.

Your medical degree is largely dependent on your family's wealth, whether you have family in the medical field and also, working hard.

Trust me, I'm a doctor.

Absolutely not true. I've know at least a dozen people that have gotten medical degrees, albeit on student loans. Working hard is the baseline, having a wealthy family helps with the financing aspects but not necessary. You could have tons of wealth, but still unable to attain medical degree if you don't work hard.

It's just an analogy. The main point is that most pieces are built by people, they don't just fall off the sky.

Your ability to work hard is dependent on things like your nutrition, genetic temperament, and general outlook on life as developed by your parents, friends, mentors and life experiences. It's not just a magical innate ability that exists if you believe hard enough. This type of thinking becomes a problem when you begin associating "working hard" with having a superior moral character that deserves to be rewarded while other less good individuals can suck eggs.

It really is all luck.

I mean, it really is all luck that we are born with a giant star providing us energy to sustain life on earth. You’re absolutely right. Lucked out with this beautiful sun!

We talk past each other when we do not specify the domain of the topic under discussion. At the highest abstraction it’s luck. We are lucky to have born as humans and not somewhere at the bottom of the food chain.

It’s impossible to have a productive conversation with these analogies and subjectivity of which abstraction layer we are talking about.

What this thread is about - “Nothing is in our control and everything is luck”. That’s a dull and uninteresting observation IMO. Also really uninspiring take on life and pursuit of excellence.

Maybe it's dull and uninteresting but unless you keep it in mind at every layer of abstraction, you run the risk of drawing incorrect conclusions. People tend to recognize this fundamental lack of control in only the most obvious cases like familial wealth, race, nationality, iq etc.. but completely ignore it in the more subtle and important distinctions between people like early childhood experiences, stress in the household, metabolism, serotonin levels, emotional tendencies and intellectual influences. The sheer complexity involved in all of these factors causes them to be treated differently and unfairly reduced to "idk some people just get ahead in life because they work harder."

I partial agree, it's complex. Meritocracy is better than ever and most things in life can be directly deduced to initiative, work ethics, personal drive, ambition and ability to have self control. There is an amazing book "Deep Work" that goes in-depth the work ethics of successful people.

You also left out the biggest and the most important luck factor - Physical attractiveness. There are several studies in the field of psychology to mundane daily anecdotal evidence of how attractive people have a lottery ticket. I don't see this as a negative thing - genetic diversity is literally how human's evolve and natural selection works.

We somewhat agree. But working hard is much easier when you have strong support. And many pieces do fall off from the sky for a lot of people.