No need for luck. There are already a surplus of examples of this. Look at the massive amount of extremely high impact open source projects that don't have malware embedded in them.

Yeah it's life-changing if money is your reason for living. I recommend you read a bit from Seneca the Young to understand where I'm coming from.

>> I recommend you read a bit from Seneca the Young to understand where I'm coming from.

A better recommendation is to actually close down the computer and put away the mobile phone and actually go out from the bedroom and interact with real people.

This way, one gets an idea about how the real world works and see the true nature of human traits and behaviors.

If you just sit at home and read Arthur Schopenhauer, Marcus Aurelius and Plato you will build a mental model of reality that doesn't exist in the real world. Your naivety would show and you will be taken advantage of without even you knowing it.

Do both. Philosophy to improve yourself but also step outside the home to understand how real life works. Best of both worlds!

I said that in the most sincerity. I find of all the stoics, Seneca is by far the most based in the real world.

All I feel is your comment degrading me.

I recommend Seneca exactly because I interact with real people and feel his written thoughts express very well why there are many people who can work on a project worth millions and not steal anything.

Sorry if it came off any other way, really.

The problem the above posters are referring is not that they feel life is about money or even that most people feel life is about money. The problem is reliably telling the difference between people that feel that way from those that don't. There's no recruitment process that can possibly determine whether someone, when faced with the prospect of walking away with $300M or not would make the right choice. It's just too extreme to be able to simulate. And you have to get it right 100% of the time. If you have 100 employees and get it wrong 1% of the time, you still have a problem.

Does the current evidence noted by fallat — the massive amount of extremely high impact open source projects that don't have malware embedded in them — suggest the error rate is much much lower that 1%?

Open source projects are not a good point of reference because by their very nature they invite external validation. If you are trying to steal $300M, you don't tell people before hand that you are going to do it. There also a difference between the money being right there, only one step away from being yours and infecting open source software with the possibility of maybe stealing something in some company that may or may not use your software in a way that would allow theft months or years after you submitted an update.

Edit: After doing some research, it appears that claims that open source doesn't fall victim to this problem are factually incorrect. [0]

[0] https://blog.sonatype.com/open-source-attacks-on-the-rise-to...

No one made the claim that open source universally don’t fall victim to dishonesty. We were discussing the rate.