Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bear141's commentslogin

Punk is for politics and Metal is for Partying.


Saying you are privileged without actually saying it. Everything is political, even partying.

If there’s no bug infested dreadlocks then it ain’t sludge!

Except Dixie Dave. Eyes crossed from Jim beam and cough syrup works too.


Doom, stoner doom, stoner sludge.

Bands like Sleep, OM, Electric Wizard, Weedeater, Dopesmoker, Satans Satyrs, Uncle Acid and the Deadbeats, Salems Pot, Acid Witch… there’s so so many.

Also heavier bands that are more stoner/psych than metal like All Them Witches, Mars Red Sky, Dead Meadow, Aunt Cynthia’s Cabin, all rip too.


That’s interesting. Somehow my brain never really put that together. He was obviously ripping heavy blues and innovated more than anyone before and arguably since. Thanks for adding him into my mental Metal flow chart.

For me I would always say that somewhere between 68-71 metal was being cooked up by Black Sabbath in Birmingham, Motörhead in London, Pentagram in Virginia, and Blue Cheer in San Francisco. Obviously Hendrix’s influence would be most obvious with the latter.


I’d like to squeeze in the stooges there too, maybe mc5


Definitely. Stooges were more proto-punk but their influence on metal and everything else is undeniable. Like the others, Iggy is a god as well.


I am completely against the outrage and drama cycle of all media. But as a matter of fact, this is clearly what drives views in today’s world so it’s nice when someone consistently getting millions of views at least chooses to support something good once in a while.

I much prefer channels that don’t use this way of gaining views, but they, because of that, don’t gain nearly as many views.

I have no skin in this game, but it’s pretty clear what the majority of viewers want.


I don’t think I’ve read a Reddit thread in the last few years that didn’t devolve into politics on the highest upvoted comments fairly quickly.


The “system” is comprised of normal people. These normal people are vastly more concerned about furthering their own career,ie “Winning”. No one should trust this system to ever find any real justice. It is a joke.


Reading this makes me think of the effect of doing something you do all the time, and are pretty great at, but when someone is watching you, you inevitably make a stupid mistake.

It also makes me think of certain people that attain the level of fame where everything they do is praised, whether it is objectively good or not.


The defeatist attitude in the reply’s to this comment are unreal. Try hard or don’t. It’s up to you. At least with the one way you might have a chance.


Acknowledging e.g. people who grow up in multilingual households usually have an easier time learning a new language than someone who didn't shouldn't just be about what decision an individual should make for themselves, it's about identifying what stimulates that kind of growth so we get more of that success overall. I.e. making a decision or not to go for the chance myself is a different topic than trying to find ways to increase the chances for everyone.

Economic growth is not a 0 sum game so why talk about the situations around it from only an individual gain perspective. If a lot of individuals are saying some situational factor makes the choice unreasonably hard then that's something worth focusing on rather than dismissing.


Acknowledging reality isn't defeatist. It's very likely that successful entrepreneurs statistically do come from richer families. We shouldn't ignore this fact because it's more fun and emotionally rewarding to us to pretend otherwise


Most attempts fail and if you get into debt you don’t get to try again.

I agree that it takes a special kind of person to try and try again, but it clearly is not for everyone.

A lot has to come together, you need to be alone, have a very supportive partner or be a sociopath (willing to drag your family down with you). You need to be in the right place (or have the means to move there). This usually works when you are young, so definitely having starting capital from somewhere works. This was much easier in the marking moments of technology where any simple tool or game could be transformed into cash. Nowadays you really need to luck out.

Europe has generally better safety net and much less entrepreneurship spirit for example. So it pushes both ways.

I guess one last thing is this weird thing in the US where investors somehow like people who previously failed. Like Elizabeth Holmes who reportedly went from prison right back into the game. With that environment of course it makes sense to just try again.


What is the other way of going about things? Assuming you will fail and never trying?


Find companies that make a lot of money and convince them to give you some of that money in exchange for your labor if you want the best risk/reward ratio.

I would much rather be in the position of an intern I mentored who at 22 made over $700K in gross income between cash and RSUs (that could easily be converted into cash unlike “equity” in private companies) their first four years out of college than some struggling founded trying to start yet another AI company so grateful they got $200k from YC while still eating beans and rice that they had to split among three founders.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: