If Lou Gerstner had put any energy into growing RJR Nabisco's tobacco business, I could see your point. But during that 1989-1993 timespan, RJR Nabisco's leaders at the time (Gerstner plus private equity guys) were focused on wringing cash out of the shrinking tobacco division. Most of their growth strategies involved the Nabisco half, which actually accounted for about 60% of revenue.
There's still nothing heroic about that chapter of Gerstner's career. But if you're seeing public good in having tobacco companies fade from sight, there are bits of Gerstner's stewardship at RJR Nabisco that unwittingly worked out okay.
So a while back, I was interviewing business people still active in their 80s and 90s -- as part of a very intriguing project that got cut short but did produce some fascinating notes. I remember asking one 95-year-old guy still serving (competently) on a bank board if there was anything that he did better now than when he was in his 60s.
His answer: "I'm a better writer."
The Cambridge research cited in this study categorizes late-life changes in brain function as nothing but declining capability, all the way down. My guess is they are mostly right. But I'm intrigued by the notion that some of that elder erosion might lead to new clarity about how everything fits together.
There's a crucial extra factor that isn't in the original article, but ought to be: Money's ability to buy great experiences decreases as you get older. I've seen this with beach vacations, road trips to see a favorite band, fast cars, ski trips, etc.
Seize the moment, friend! What you can do NOW with that 10% slice will never exactly be on your possibilities map again.
I think you're hitting on something that very rarely gets discussed, at least in the US and maybe some other Western societies. I wonder if it's just simple depreciation or compound depreciation (or whatever the opposite of compound interest would be).
Me finding the money to climb Kilimanjaro at 23 is different than me having the money at 40 but worse knees.
Thank you for pointing this out and I hope someone formalizes it more.
This is why I love old tech like my 40 year old car (bmw e30 325is) and analog camera and whatnot. You have way more control because of less external dependencies and simplicity, and the prices are still decent compared to what you'd get now for vastly more money. $70k dogshit unwrenchable SUV or $10k 80's car that works like a dream and is built like a thinkpad? It's so relaxing working with older things. Hearing old peoples stories are wild, like just crossing the border with a 6 pack of beer no passport no nothing and having a good time on the weekend. Now my asshole is getting scanned down to the submillimeter and sitting in a palantir database just so I can go on a vacation.
Maintenance is great. I've only had to do minor things to it. Since I'm 6'5 I did have to re-weld all my stalks to be 30 degrees back and do a bunch of work on the steering column and wheel to bring it forward 8 inches and up 2, some stuff on the throttle body from coolant leaks, but other than that it's been great. I've put 100k+ km on it in just the past two winters since I live up in the boonies. I'm alerted of oil changes by the lights in the centre of the dash as well. I haven't done much of any work at all except what I mentioned since buying it and it's been smooth sailing for multiple winters now. The M20B25 is built like a tank. I have it sitting on B8's on H&R sports springs so the handling couldn't be better, and I did some minor ECU tuning on it to give me a little more power on the low end. The idle has remained at a perfect 750 as well, and I can get it down to 6.8L/100KM if I baby it. It's the perfect car [0]. I've even binned it a few times and it's still going strong.
I've also got a period correct radio in there from bmwradios.com (radio wizard from estonia) who gave it bluetooth functionality along with a period correct panel in the console for a microphone, so I can talk hands free while I'm driving. He also modified the radio for me to read out the different GTA 3/4/5 radio stations and I can switch them around as I only listen to GTA radio and commercials when driving [1]. Besides it being 900kg with no airbags, it's the perfect car.
Between e30zone, the bentley manual, and realOEM [3] amongst the other infinite amount of resources it's impossible not to do your own work on it and it's usually easy. It really is a thinkpad in car form. Most parts are still produced and if they aren't you can get any number of things from third party shops like e30garage.no [4] if it's not on FCPEuro. Lot's of parts are also plug'n'play between different BMW models like steering racks which are quite easily swappable.
> Money's ability to buy great experiences decreases as you get older.
Excellent point. You may have just talked me into retiring.
> What you can do NOW with that 10% slice will never exactly be on your possibilities map again.
Maybe not... but "once in a lifetime chances" come around more often than you think. You don't have to take every one right now. (As you get older, options narrow, as you said.)
Read it earlier this year and it definitely changed some of my thinking along those same lines.
My loose summary of the book:
"Any money left in the bank when you die is essentially wasted - you could have used it to have experiences when you were alive, or given it to family / charity earlier when it would have had more benefit. Figure out what major experiences and memories you want to have in life, plan to do them earlier when you have health and time, and build up memories for later in life."
I didn't find the discussions of how to plan out retirement savings very useful - there's a lot better info on withdrawal approaches in various FIRE-related groups.
But the "be willing to spend now on activities you might not be able to do later / don't hold off on 'living' until you're retired" argument made a _lot_ of sense to me for a variety of reasons, and it was a major factor in researching early retirement a few months later (and deciding to make that a new goal. along with taking more vacations before then).
We were in our 20's when my friend said 'A day in your 20's is worth a year in your 30's, a day in your 30's is worth a year in your 40's, etc...' Now in our 60's we're a little less adamant - every day is worth something.- but it has been a useful perspective.
Physically, I don’t feel a lot different than in my 40s. ( I’m pretty firm in my exercise schedule. ) But looking over almost anyone in their 80s, I’m reminded that the 60s likely kicks off ‘the fourth quarter’, to use sports parlance.
Time to let it all hang out, leave nothing on the table.
A day in my 20s was worth nothing. I went and flipped burgers for $4/hr, then probably went out for beers at a dive bar that night. Just living day to day.
I took a few months off intentionally in between jobs to hike and camp and hang out with my kids. Now that my kids are older my only regret is that I didn't do it for longer.
I don't agree. How can wasting your money in your twenties and thirties be more valuable than saving for an early retirement. Imagine being able to retire at 40 and do whatever you want. If you weren't stupid, your health should be good enough. Why prolong the time you have to do stupid chores for other people when you can be strategic and opt out as early as possible.
You can take once-in-a-lifetime experiences in your 20s and still save for retirement. I went to Burning Man and traveled to Amsterdam in my 20s and that didn't impact my savings.
I should point out that it's cheaper to travel when young: Back then I stayed in a tent in the desert and in a friend's room near Amsterdam. If I did the same trip today, I'd have my family in tow, and would need more comfortable accommodations.
I should also point out that startup equity is not retirement savings. Selling 10% of your equity, investing most of it, and then doing something that you won't be able to do when you're old is a very wise and mature decision.
Taking some time off to travel when you're young is much more than a beach vacation. You meet people (sometimes you meet your future wife), that can become lifelong friends. You learn what you like and don't like; and that the world is infinitely more complicated and beautiful than what you could imagine through books and watching youtube.
After 40 you've already made many of your major life decisions - career, partner, education, kids etc. There's less room for new experiences to alter that trajectory meaningfully.
One thing I've also realized through being lucky enough to enjoy some "semi-retirement" between work is having a healthy balance makes me appreciate both work and "leisure" more. It gets pretty boring to go to the beach every day, it turns out. I was itching to get back to building something by the end.
I don't think it's an either or proposition. You can both retire early AND take a nice vacation. Sure it delays your retirement date by a couple of days, but I think that's a good tradeoff generally. I'm approaching 40 and even now, the vacations I took when I was 10 years younger were different than now, I could cram more in, do more things without being as sore the next day, etc. And I haven't had kids yet, that would definitely change vacations.
Kids is one big reason. You can have totally different experiences before you have kids, once they arrive your outlook on life changes, risk tolerance changes etc.
If you can retire at 40 having lived your 20s/30s to the fullest then game on, but it would be crazy to sacrifice that time when you are so free and full of energy otherwise IMHO.
FWIW I am fortunate enough to have really enjoyed by earlier years and be mostly retired in my early 40s.
It's worth reading former WashPost editor Marty Baron's memoirs for a little more insight about Bezos's priorities. Back when Bezos was married to MacKenzie Scott, she was a surprisingly strong voice about how to do things. (The slogan "Democracy Dies in Darkness" got approved after her blessing.) Lately, my sense is that his new wife, Lauren Sanchez, has more of an interest in the Post than Bezos does.
So he's basically the absentee owner of a property that's more interesting to the women in his life than to him. Current management at the paper is probably eager to make sure that the paper doesn't embarrass (or "complexify") his bigger business priorities. Their desire to mollify may be excessive. I've seen such things happen inside large organizations.
Hire people who are going to do their best work ever, for you, after having partially but not fully mastered everything you want, via their previous jobs. It's easy to evaluate a resume. It's harder -- but not impossible -- to assess potential. Working inside a big tech company for six years, I saw that PM hires were done almost entirely on pedigree: find me another Stanford grad. These tended to produce a lot of fast exits as well as some comically bad and totally predictable fails.
Engineering hires were done on hunger, drive, scrappiness (and networks). They fared better.
It is possible to do leetcode without practicing, even before AI. That said the structure of the Big Tech process is also quite long/multi-step with many opportunities to give up during, which helps select for drive. It's hard to do this effectively with shorter processes. It is however always a good practice to 1) design very hard interviews but 2) give a lot of preparation to candidates beforehand, even for non-leetcode interviews, as it helps filter who can efficiently and diligently use provided information to increase their performance.
>It is possible to do leetcode without practicing, even before AI
Back when people did in person interviews, people were writing psuedocode on whiteboards, so knowing the right algorithm and being a strong programmer was necessary, and I can see how one might not need to practice.
However, with the move to online interviews where people are expecting running and debugging some complex solutions (so you cannot hand wave trivial but potentially time consuming helper methods), coding speed can easily become the bottleneck.
> 2) give a lot of preparation to candidates beforehand, even for non-leetcode interviews, as it helps filter who can efficiently and diligently use provided information to increase their performance.
Yes, this reminds me of the netflix interview process where they told me to read the culture packet thoroughly, then quizzed me on it! It was quite easy, but you can bet that a lof candidates don't take that seriously.
Those things are fakeable, but there are plenty of people who will aggressively signal a LACK of hunger. It's more of a negative predictor than a positive one.
Verifiable evidence of them learning key new skills on their own, building passion projects (ideally somewhat comparable to what your startup needs), taking work to the finish line, etc.
Press (politely) for extra details via follow-up questions. Make it easy for the legitimate doers to share specifics of what they've done and learned, while the posers get vague in a hurry and change the subject.
Wall Street and the big corporate law firms of NYC/DC have been championing extreme hours since the 1980s. Maybe earlier. So it's interesting to see the short- and long-term effects of this on people's lives.
Informal assessment here, re: how these versions of "hustle culture" have played out. First, people who can last a long time do make a lot of money. Second, the wipe-out rate is pronounced but not catastrophic. Yes, there's sometimes a price to pay in terms of bad marriages, early heart attacks, etc. but it's not so pervasive that everyone who chases all-out success comes up short. You can win at this game.
Third -- and this perhaps OPs best area for questioning: When you work 90-hour weeks, your judgment about picking the right projects goes to hell. You're the greyhound going round the track as fast as you can, chasing the rabbit that you'll never catch. Your rabbit-value assessment system doesn't exist. You just keep running toward whatever someone else points you toward. On Wall Street, a lot of marathon hours are spent trying to close deals that won't close. Or that turn out to have been identifiable mistakes/misguided obsessions.
I was chatting earlier this year with a former Big Law attorney who spent a frenzied year after Hurricane Katrina drafting blizzards of legal filings so that big insurers could dodge claims. Her work was valued enough that she (and her firm) got paid a lot and maybe even did landmark work. Nearly 20 years later, is that the career badge that you'll always feel good about?
> Nearly 20 years later, is that the career badge that you'll always feel good about?
Well, if the result work has negative connotations, you wouldn't even mention it (especially after 20 years). However, as you said:
> enough that she (and her firm) got paid a lot and maybe even did landmark work
At the end of the day, that's what mostly matters. Sure, some people believe in what they are doing and put insane hours, but most just do it for money. And if they manage to get a lot, then yeah, it was all justified.
---
> Second, the wipe-out rate is pronounced but not catastrophic
I agree with this -- people who are deeply invested in their projects are often already do the second shift. So if you are motivated enough, that's kind of the same, plus people can be in a position where they have no external obligations (often when they are young).
It is bad long-term, but for a relatively short term for many it is a decent gamble.
Yahoo did have a unique ability to smother any business that it acquired -- and I think the reasons go way beyond an inability to monetize them. In fact, I'd argue that it was actually Yahoo's fixation with short-term monetization strategies that eventually turned everything to dust.
Consider Flickr, which Yahoo bought for about $25 million in 2005. If you're a tech visionary, you look at this popular little photo-sharing site and say: "Wow, everyone's connectivity speeds are soaring, and we could morph this into a video site, too!" And then, maybe, you've invented YouTube.
Or, you look at the way Friendstr and Facebook are getting traction, and you say: "Wow, what if we built out easier commenting and a social-network feed with abundant sharing of popular photos among users' pals?" And then maybe you've invented Instagram.
But Yahoo's metrics-driven managers refused to stretch their brains in this direction. I've been told by two famous-name insiders at the time that Yahoo's approach to everything was to set short-term targets focused on existing metrics, with rigid focus on hitting quarterly targets. It was all about driving orderly growth of what was already there, rather than any desire to explore new and uncharted areas.
In essence, Yahoo had a Silicon Valley address but a Battle Creek, Mich., mindset. Purple logo aside, Yahoo owed a lot more to the way W.W. Kellogg had been running its cereal business for decades, as opposed to anything going on in the 650 area code.
That's actually the point. Yahoo in 2005 had the financial muscle -- and an interesting starting point via Flickr's user base -- to spin up its own version of YouTube without needing to do an acquisition. Stronger Yahoo leadership would have stomached the get-started costs of an internal build-out, because of a sense of what this could become.
Yahoo just lacked the imagination and nerve necessary to see how its own assets could lead to the next big thing.
Yet Google failed to build a social network, Apple failed to build a car and Microsoft failed to muscle its way into the mobile market.
And now Bytedance beat every US competitor, including Google's YouTube, Amazon's Twitch and Facebook's Instagram with what? An app that lets you upload 10s videos.
My father was one of the scientific Principal Investigators (PIs) who analyzed the Apollo 11 lunar samples, back in 1969. Flipping through some of his notes from back then, it sounds as if a rotating assortment of bureaucrats injected themselves into the chain-of-custody with weird and embarrassing effects. To wit:
Some Agriculture Department folks decided that their legal authority to quarantine soil samples brought into the U.S. applied to lunar soils, too. They insisted on building a three-week quarantine facility with slivers of lunar samples, exposed to "germ-free mice born by cesarean section." Only after the mice survived this ordeal was it safe to release the fuller batch of samples.
Another character insisted that the aluminum rock boxes be sealed, while on the moon, with gaskets of indium (soft, rare metal) which would deform to create a very tight seal. The geochemists on earth protested, in vain, that this procedure would ruin their hopes of doing any indium analysis of the samples themselves, shutting down an interesting line of research. No luck in changing the protocol. Turns out that the indium seals didn't work, and the rock boxes reached the earth-based quarantine facilities with normal air pressure anyway.
There's more silliness about trying to keep the lunar samples in a hard vacuum while designing rigidly mounted gloves that could be used to manipulate/slice/divide the samples without breaking the vacuum. Maybe we know today how to sustain flexible gloves in such an environment. We didn't, back then.
> They insisted on building a three-week quarantine facility with slivers of lunar samples
There was a ton of money flowing in for space and it was the big new thing of the future. Makes sense other agencies would try to insert themselves and try to seem relevant to the new popular thing in the news and latch themselves onto any future spending/authority.
I can kind of see why someone whose job it is to quarantine soil samples from other places on Earth would want to quarantine soil samples from another planet. Sort of.
Good thing corporations don’t have different divisions vying for relevancy by being super important to the new hotness (cough AI cough), and this is just the government being weird eh?
Bureaucracy is always corrupt, incompetent and self-serving to varying degrees. There is no way around it, it's a necessary evil for communication and organisation. At least governments in democracies have some form of oversight on them, there is less oversight in corporations or dictatorships.
Maybe an AI dictatorship would rid us of bureaucracy, but we'd both end up in a paperclip sweatshop.
- moon dust has very fine particles. It is very irritating for skin, and there was a very good chance it could damage lungs like azbestos.
- Electronics and dust do not mix well
- electrostatic properties were not known, it could stick to every surface and coat it, perhaps prevent vacuum seals etc... Look at images from inside capsule, before and after landing! And that was just dust, brought on suits, not full samples!
What’s more: “Unlike dust particles on Earth, dust on the Moon’s surface is sharp and abrasive – like tiny shards of glass – because it hasn’t been exposed to weathering and elements like water and oxygen.”
Does it smell strong because of it's composition or because the vacuum of space has a strange effect on it? Like the particulates not dispersing enough?
I don't know. What if there happened to me some unimaginable pathogen that Earth animal life had no way of resisting, and that multiplied rapidly in the presence of our kind of life?
Extremely improbable. Astronomically improbable. Virtually impossible. All that is absolutely, 100% true.
But given the stakes, similarly astronomically high, I'm not sure it didn't actually make sense to do a quarantine for a few weeks. Yes, I know the indium seals didn't work. But the fact that we failed to create a quarantine doesn't mean it was worthless to at least make an attempt. It cost us virtually nothing in comparison to the stakes.
That's my personal response, anyway, and reflects the opinion I would have expressed at the time if I happened to have been involved in the project.
I've visited that library. It's a high-ceiling architectural joy, but unless you're deeply, deeply into repetitive religious tracts of 600 years ago, most of the collection is more of a curiosity than a valuable resource to modern scholars.
To answer @Amerzarak's question, the abbey is in a rural setting without an immediate surrounding community of researchers or urban resources. So, yes, no air-conditioning. The floors are polished; the ticket-takers are friendly, and the guides have a handful of stories that they tell well. For aesthetics, it would be nice if they can preserve everything. But in terms of scholarly impact, this wouldn't be on my list of the world's 1,000 historic collections most worth preserving in their entirety.
> but unless you're deeply, deeply into repetitive religious tracts of 600 years ago, most of the collection is more of a curiosity than a valuable resource to modern scholars.
It's an abbey, so they are probably into religious tracts and it has cultural and sentimental value to them. E.g. if it has a Bible from the 13th century then it's worth preserving even if it's just the usual stuff.
Potentially some of the books are also palimpsest, and perhaps if examined closely might have more ancient writings on them like lost Greek histories, poetry, or philosophy. I understand that the repurposing of paper was quite common back then.
> I've visited that library. It's a high-ceiling architectural joy, but unless you're deeply, deeply into repetitive religious tracts of 600 years ago, most of the collection is more of a curiosity than a valuable resource to modern scholars.
You know, there are modern scholars that study that stuff, both directly and as a resource for studying other areas.
Ah, if you've got the budget (and stature) of the U.S. Library of Congress, you can probably figure out how install all the necessary ductwork in a giant, multi-chambered old building that wasn't built with AC in mind. (Fun article is here about how they do it: https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/blog/librarys-hva...)
But it's worth browsing pictures of the abbey to get a sense of how challenging this would be. https://www.comece.eu/christian-artworks-benedictine-archabb... Most books reside in giant, wall-flush bookcases with no natural ventilation. Establishing decent airflow -- without accidentally ruining structural walls or turning the bookcases into perforated messes -- seems very hard.
Yes, they are just not popular here. All new US houses are built with airducts as well, so it's not just old homes.
By the way, I was always curious why installing splits _in_ the room. I understand multi-story apartments, where there's no other place. But if we're talking about detached houses you have an attic (where the airducts go), or a ceiling (where recessed lights go). Can we put splits in there? I can see problems with power delivery, condensate diversion, but they are the same if we install them _in_ the room. But in return you get fine-tuned climate control, and no pressure difference problems (no need for bypasses to prevent slamming doors with ducts).
Lots of corporate boards, university boards, nonprofit boards, etc. make room for folks like her. She understands something about social media and the digital future -- and even if that expertise doesn't impress many folks on HackerNews, it will seem quite sufficient and robust to the elderly trustees and big-donor board members of Pleurisy State University.
Being 62 is the perfect age for such roles. Young enough to climb a flight of stairs; old enough to nod appropriately to her new peers' references from the 1980s. Executive search firms will be eager to guide her into as many board roles as she might want.
There's still nothing heroic about that chapter of Gerstner's career. But if you're seeing public good in having tobacco companies fade from sight, there are bits of Gerstner's stewardship at RJR Nabisco that unwittingly worked out okay.
reply