TheWrongGuy

Winner of the fake Nobel

You're right. "People who think that they'll become bosses someday if they lick the boot hard enough" is definitely a core audience :)

A nice article by bosses for bosses that tells a nice clean story that goes to great lengths to avoid any confrontations with any part of reality that might make them uncomfortable.

goo goo ga ga

Who is we? Bolsonaro supporters?

so many of the example pics are obviously slop! Why are people in such a hurry to release pictures where, for example, that there are two red headsets on the vintage red phone..

This site's Tony Soprano moment

Data is much closer to being a neurodivergent human than he is an LLM

Here I am, reading about the homeopape on the homeopape

I'm in the really annoying and lonely (not necessarily in that order) camp of people who think it probably does exist but isn't properly described by these specious and lazy arguments.

After all these years they finally got someone

By that standard, human brains don't either. Our externalizations of concepts like language or symbolic structure allow us to do so. In the parlance of our times, we built our own reasoning harnesses because our intuition lead us to do so.

Felt like the article could have benefitted from more focus and follow through tbh. Relatable problem, but it didn't say anything beyond exactly what you would have gotten from reading the title.

Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of

This author, like many before him, have decided that their lack of comprehension of a concept (in this case, money) is somehow proof that it can't be understood.

"Hence too the economic paradox, that the most powerful instrument for shortening labour-time, becomes the most unfailing means for placing every moment of the labourer's time and that of his family, at the disposal of the capitalist for the purpose of expanding the value of his capital." - some crazy radical economist, nearly 200 years ago

That's all fine, and you're right: Sam Walton was talented and it was a smart investment. You've interpreted my "average hard-working chump" to mean "not a talented businessman" which is not what I meant. I just think that if you got a bunch of money from your father in law and were part of prestigious society that needs to be part of the story. If it's omitted, I have to think that the author is intentionally pushing an alternate but equally-inaccurate view of how success happens.

Maybe true, but the article is pretty much replacing what you'd call "career porn" with what I'd call "persistence porn." About the kid who walked in the snow wearing nothing but a t shirt every day to get his degree, yadda yadda.. ignore the fact that Sam Walton he had a rich stepdad who financed his businesses, that he was in a prestigious fraternity and secret society at UoM, and had a number of other benefits that are simply not available to your average hard-working chump.

Great point that these narratives are usually self-mythologizing and mostly untrue. Success is more than just a “eureka” moment where it all comes together. It is also more than the alternative that you present here, wherein the person succeeds purely by outworking the competition. A much more complete — and frankly, more interesting — picture of success would include the ideas, the hard work, and also explain how Walton’s early stores were financed by his father in law Leland Stanford Robson (who often paid his son-in-law’s bills, sometimes even without Walton’s knowledge), that he was active in Missouri’s fraternity communities, was a member of QEBH, the UoM secret society that also includes several past and current state governors as well as one of the founders of Kinder Morgan. If your aim is to demythologize success and present a more accurate view of the the path one must walk to become massively successful, isn’t it kind of misleading to omit Walton’s network of powerful family, friends, and benefactors?