Reading04: Back to Business

Reading Graham's essays were honestly such a breath of fresh air. This dude is writing exactly what I'm thinking--I completely resonate with his perception of the hacker and, more importantly, what the hacker sets out to do.

"And then at the other extreme you have the hackers, who are trying to write interesting software, and for whom computers are just a medium of expression, as concrete is for architects or paint for painters. It's as if mathematicians, physicists, and architects all had to be in the same department."

If anything, these writings make hacking more desirable. When I was a senior in high school, my teachers would (naturally) ask me what I wanted to study in undergrad. "Computer science." They would laugh, "there's no world in which you sit in a cubicle and write code all day--you talk too much." I took this as a compliment.

For context: I was a theater kid. While I've always enjoyed being a creative-type, there was, and still is, something intriguing about logic; there is no subjective interpretation, it just makes sense. Also, I was good at it! When I discovered real programming, it felt like the blend I needed--a way to express creativity in a "productive" manner. There's something satisfying about styling code and knowing that every line is performing its own, necessary function (no pun intended). While I haven't spent much time studying well-written code, Graham encourages me to do so. Maybe I should learn by example rather than trying to figure it all out, myself.

I've talked to a few friends about what a career in Big Tech would look like; some have mentioned that it wouldn't even be fun since you have to play by their rules--in some scenarios, having a mentor look over your shoulder and critique every line to make sure it aligns with the company's standards. I honestly think that this could be beneficial. Rather than an insult to my style or restriction on my work, it would be interesting to see how, and why, they take this approach. I see these experiences as difficult; not in a way that hinders your growth, but forces you to express your beliefs within the space you are given. You don't have to "color outside the lines" like the "Americanness" that Graham describes; learn how to express your own color within. That's where you can find real joy in your work (at least I think so).

"Nerds aren't the only losers in the popularity rat race. Nerds are unpopular because they're distracted."

Paul Graham and Steven Levy's depiction of the hacker are pretty similar, if not the exact same. They're kids who reject authority and seek rebellion, constantly focused on doing what they think is "cool" and the rest of the world thinks is stupid. Graham offers a justification for nerds; he doesn't reject who they are. This description seems to fit the guys in the TMRC or the Homebrew Club. The only difference between the authors is that Graham describes a world in which the hacker is not required to be this type of way. He is simply projecting his lived experience onto the hacker community as a whole.

Being good at something takes time; most sophomores don't wake up one day and develop a distributed system having only taken fund comp. It makes sense that most success stories are from outcasts. You will most likely master your profession at a faster rate than your peers if you dedicate your life to it. That's what these hackers did, and I'm glad that I'm able to experience a piece of what motivated them. I don't mind if I never end up in an article for my research in embedded systems--I like the balance in my life, and I'm happy to be entering a career that I love. That's enough for me.