Was this written by GPT-3?

GDC7 quite consistently posts incomprehensible shit. Honestly a lot of HN regulars have become incomprehensible recently.

Got to farm that karma somehow so you can sell thought leader hackernews accounts.

Has there yet been a known case of HN account selling? Digg started with voting brigades but I've yet to hear of even that on HN.

Also, what would be the purpose of selling an HN account?

The same reason you would sell any other social account. You build a profile that seems real, sell it, then the buyer uses that profile to upvote and post comments on their new product release which blows up on HN and generates much more interest and potential revenue than it would otherwise.

I don't have proof that it is happening but it happens on every other social site so it would be shocking if it isnt happening here.

GDC7 was created 62 days ago and has two-digit karma, sure you're not thinking of someone else? (Just seems unlikely you'd recognise such a new and not particularly highly up-voted account.)

I've had an inane conversation with them previously. Probably they have two-digit karma as they are downvoted a lot.

I love you too, Joe!

I read this. I then re-read it because I was thinking that maybe I just missed something or didn't understand the analogy since I am not a hockey fan (pucks are for ice-hockey, right?).

I then re-read it once more. I am now convinced that this doesn't mean anything. It's a vomit of words. Someone please help explain this to me.

Agreed, entrepreneurs these days severely undervalue the benefits of releasing brain juice

Years of experience make some things incredibly obvious where things are going.

My failure to convince others makes it _appear_ like I am skating where the puck is going, when I was simply following it down an obvious path, and no one else was.

But maybe this is common for tech focused people surrounded by non-techies?

> My failure to convince others makes it _appear_ like I am skating where the puck is going, when I was simply following it down an obvious path, and no one else was.

It's not like there is a difference isn't it? Gretsky probably thought other players were stupid or were poisoned by lead or something.

#1 is the lonliest number, you are at the local top, meaning the local #1

What you are experiencing goes with the territory, you should focus your efforts on hyping yourself up as the individual sitting at the local top, instead of ruminating on the collective organizational goals which are not being reached in the most streamlined and effortless way because other people aren't at your level.

But you can still try to stimulate them to improve like Gretsky himself and Jordan did in their own teams.

But I have been horribly wrong also, so I'm not so inclined to lead boldly. I think Jordan and Gresky had the benefit that their team also thought they knew what was best.

> But I have been horribly wrong also, so I'm not so inclined to lead boldly

I think Musk spews a lot of BS, but one thing I agree with him is that if you think you have an edge you want to bet frequently because as the high frequency will have your edge manifest itself and you'd end up better/way better than random.

Also yet another important point is that your competitor is not somebody who is Omniscient and gets it right 100% of the times, but people who hold your same role in competing organizations.

So being wrong is not terrible, unfortunately the terrible part is that unlike sports the mistakes of people in your same position in competing organizations are hidden from your collegues and teammates. Hence the grass is always greener, and the comparison immediately skips to the Omniscient being.

That is a huge problem, and I don't know if it will ever be solved given that work is unspectacular and there is not a trail of events and decisions which can be publicly examined.

No such thing as a highlight reel (and even there was, nobody would ever bother looking at it.)