Adjusting that attitude, or at least never saying that bit out loud, may win you more friends.
Other than that, with hindsight, yes, it can all be painted as a series of bad decisions - however I'm sure at the time every decision that got him to where he is now made perfect sense, and was at least a good decision given the information available to him then.
I read Bad Blood, and have tracked stories about the key players, but we don't really know what each player's exit strategy actually was.
Hers seems to have been to eventually produce the tech she claimed her company already had. He may have bought into that dream, or planned to cut and run at some point (or both at different times).
> Adjusting that attitude, or at least never saying that bit out loud, may win you more friends.
Having a spine and saying what you believe is what wins you friends. Self-censoring being afraid that someone on the internet will get triggered will NOT win you friends.
Edit: For what’s worth I don’t agree with them that having no kids is a fail.
Being a "no filter" type in real life works for few, but there's a very fine line before people just see you as an unbearable asshole - if you're the type that needs to be vocal on unsolicited opinions.
And in this case, it would be the difference between saying
"I wonder why [person] didn't remarry or get kids - but that's really none of my business."
and
"People that don't get married or have kids are losers."
So obviously it also depends on how one frames their questions and opinions.
Billions of people in this world would agree unreservedly with the sentiment in question. Only a very specific class of people would have a negative reaction to this.
If you don't want to "hang with that crowd" then there's nothing to worry about here w.r.t filter.
I wouldn't read too much into this - this sentiment is quite frequent here by some more vocal members, and HN is very far from being representative of general population (which is very good in this regard, since mankind would be over in 2-3 generations).
I have personally a very different opinion - smart handy balanced successful (in life, pursuit of happiness, usefulness to society) people should have more kids/kids more frequently as they do, of course if they are able to do so physically, emotionally and overall mentally. Why - this world desperately needs more of such people, and instead gets explosion of poor uneducated farmers or basic factory workers.
Quiet average (or under-average) majority never changes much, they listen to what they should think, what is right, cool etc. Decision processes based mostly on emotions, which is always flawed long-term (and mass media abuse this to no end). We as mankind are clearly heading to self-destruction if we continue this trajectory long enough (longer than doomsayers preach but not absurdly long).
Also majority of childless older folks I've met are in one of these categories: 1) physically impossible, didn't want to go through adoption bureaucratic hell; 2) would be OK with kids but didn't meet the right partner during say age 20-45; 3) didn't want them earlier and when decision changed they realized it was too late (I know quite a few guys in this bracket too). Those that made this decision consciously at early age and stand by it till death without regrets are really small minority.
Even those fearing overpopulation are helping shrink it a bit if they have 2 kids max (equilibrium is somewhere around 2.1 IIRC). There are other points but I don't want to end up with article on this topic. Suffice to say, in my view, life is a (short) game that shouldn't be played on easy difficulty (=no kids) to get most out of it.
If that makes me some arrogant a-hole for stating that, because I ruffled some underlying feathers of somebody online is of no concern to me. Being people-pleaser is a shitty life from all possible angles.
Adjusting your attitude to stop telling people to adjust their attitude might actually result in a much healthier atmosphere, not the woke madness we see now.
> however I'm sure at the time every decision that got him to where he is now made perfect sense,
Let's not forget that at a certain moment of time Theranos was valued at $9 billion (according to my web searches), and that was just before almost anyone and his brother was at the helm of a unicorn. At that exact moment I'm pretty sure he had felt he had taken almost all the correct decisions.
You can have plenty of friends while believing that not having any kids is a fail, 70% of married couples have kids. Also, most reasonable people don't alienate friends over differing beliefs.
Wouldn't alienate me. I have religious friends who call my atheism a "fail". Doesn't both me one bit. Being confident in your believes gives you the ability to weather criticism. Likewise I routinely an upfront with religious friends that I think they believe in made up things, and are wasting their time. It's just a fact that I think that, and it's honest. Again, shouldn't bother well-adjusted religious people. They kinda know that 100% of the earth's population doesn't believe the same things as they do. You kinda get that going in to it.
People should be more open to welcoming differing opinions. No one should have to self-censor their own opinions.
It might alienate some atypically sensitive people, but as someone who has no children, I don't feel particularly alienated by it; and I don't think most people who have no kids take particular offense to it either.
I read it in the context of giving your life to a woman and her company who then marries someone else and has kids. But yeah in hindsight the inclusion of that is not in the best taste, he could be childless for many reasons, none of which should be of public concern.
How am I atypically sensitive if I don’t want to have anything to do with a person who thinks my beliefs and choices are a failure? That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Instead, I choose to be friends with people who accept me as I am.
ETA: Though I wouldn’t want them to not express it, the opposite.
Because most people aren’t so offended by it that they choose to avoid people with such opinions altogether (I’m not talking about not wanting to be friends, but rather, being offended). Such sensitivity is atypical by definition. It’s not intended to be an insult, merely an observation.
Besides, how does it possibly help you (or anyone else) to get emotionally wounded by some random stranger on the Internet's insensitive comments? Most people older than their 20s have figured this out already and are living more productive lives.
Some people use the word failure in a way which – whether by denotation or just connotation – includes an aspect of culpability, blame, fault. If that's your understanding of failure, using it to speak of people in that situation does seem particularly insensitive. On the other hand, maybe other people have a different understanding of the word, in which the element of culpability/blame/fault is either missing, or at least, less emphasised–these people may struggle to understand what others are so upset about, especially if they aren't aware of that difference in the understanding of the word.
If they tried to have kids and were not able to then they failed. There is no "understanding" of the word where that's not true.
And people get upset or offended by anything, it's really not useful trying to shut down discussion by claiming you shouldn't say or think something because allegedly some hypothetical people might get upset.
> If they tried to have kids and were not able to then they failed. There is no "understanding" of the word where that's not true.
"They failed" does have some connotation of culpability though, doesn't it? I mean, the phrase certainly is sometimes used in situations where nobody would understand it as implying any blame; but, on the other hand, there are many other cases in which it is used in a blaming way, and those other cases contribute to its connotations.
> And people get upset or offended by anything, it's really not useful trying to shut down discussion by claiming you shouldn't say or think something because allegedly some hypothetical people might get upset.
I'm not trying to shut down anything. I'm just attempting to produce an explanation of why some people, rightly or wrongly, actually are upset (which is rather apparent from other comments on this post.)
> "They failed" does have some connotation of culpability though, doesn't it? I mean, the phrase certainly is sometimes used in situations where nobody would understand it as implying any blame; but, on the other hand, there are many other cases in which it is used in a blaming way, and those other cases contribute to its connotations.
It usually does have some, yes. For example if you are infertile through some fault of your reproductive system, then that is to blame for your inability to have children.
> I'm not trying to shut down anything. I'm just attempting to produce an explanation of why some people, rightly or wrongly, actually are upset (which is rather apparent from other comments on this post.)
I think they're just vicariously upset. Either way I wasn't wondering about them. Just correcting a misconception about the use of a word.
The genes would see it as a failure, but they don't really have feelings or motivations, so I'm not sure it makes sense to anthropomorphise them. If we do, it's easy to not take offense, you just have a charitable interpretation and move on with your day.
Most reasonable people don't alienate friends over different beliefs, but most people also have some sense of discretion when judging the lives of their friends.
I think I would have issues with a friend who judged me as having failed, or worse, a failure for what I consider personal and subjective life choices.
>Most reasonable people don't alienate friends over different beliefs,
like the different belief that not having kids is a fail? Or can you alienate friends over beliefs you disagree with, but not ones you do?
I mean I do not have any kids, but I know many people that believe one of goals of life is to have children, and I am intelligent enough to understand that procreation is evolution's goal
Thus I do not get offended or alienate people from my life if they say me not having kids is a failure
There is a difference between believing something to be a personal truth and a universal truth.
I don't know if it would irreconcilable, but I think I would have an issue if someone tried to openly judge me and think me a lesser person based on their personal truths.
Well that is getting close to an ongoing trend I see in wider society. I do not need anyone else to approve of my life style. If someone told me a lifestyle choice I made was to them a "failure". I would seek to understand why, evaluate if their logic has any application to my life and if not simply shrug and disgard thier opinion. If I instead it did have value I would see if I wanted to make a change
The fact the people judge other people actions based on their worldview is just a fact of life. Seeking that external validation of ones life choices to me shows insecurities in those choices.
In order have a pluralist society we have to be a to allow people to "think less of us" while still engaging, talking, and transacting with them. If we instead simply reject everyone that does not share our worldview then that is a monoculture, and most likely and dystopian society as well
I think you have a very good point with respect to general society and an overly expressed need for validation.
However, we are talking about friends, not strangers. Surely there is some point when the opinions of others should matter.
Would you want a friend, or worse, a spouse that considered you to be a failure, fool, or generally inferior person?
In my belief, healthy and meaningful personal relationships are based on mutual respect. This includes accepting the fact that other people may have different life goals and objectives.
This doesn't need to be absolute, but depending on the magnitude and frequency it can certainly be a irreconcilable difference.
I guess that depends on the context, I do not want a people around me that will just agree with everything I say and do, and in the context here we are talking about a life choice I made (in this case not having children) as a failure... not that I am "failure, fool, or generally inferior person" I think those are different things.
lets change the context to something less divisive, say i was an Alcoholic and my Alcoholism was destroying my life would my "friend" be a friend if they continued to supply me with Whiskey and Beer or would they be a "friend" is they took me to task, told me as I fool, and a failure?
I think that is a good point. Context and intent matter.
Sometimes being a good friend means disagreement.
That said, there is productive and unproductive disagreement. Similarly, there is also transient and permanent disagreement.
There is also the matter of perspective. In the case of the alcoholic friend, there is a difference between viewing it as something that is preventing them from achieving their own goals versus your own personal code. I think the former is a much more compassionate view (and perhaps more productive).
I think this is an interesting example because most people would agree that destroying your life with Alcoholism is a bad thing, so we both share the same bias.
What if you had an alcoholic friend who judged you for not regularly drinking to excess? How does that change the logic in the example?
Considering friends failures seems a bit more than differences. But I'd assume that's more a thing of quickly writing an HN comment than anything else.
You can't succeed without first doing a lot of failing. I didn't say my friends were losers. Losers quit when they fail. Winners get up, learn, and try again. I like to hang out with winners.
I think if you surveyed a decent amount if people who are 70+ years old with no children, you'd find out if this is a fail or not... I think you can predict the answer.
Responding to the responses: a summary, for the historical record.
Some people noted the key thing here - Sunny's decisions earned him more wealth (if ephemerally) and fame (ditto) than most of us will ever obtain. The balance of good to poor decisions leans heavily to the poor end of the spectrum to my eyes, but it's unlikely he would have agreed during most of the period.
Several people seemed more upset that my response to someone describing a man whose actions may have lead to the deaths of others, certainly amplifying poor health outcomes for many [0] that relied in good faith on the fraudulent & false results coming out of the company, his lack of children was a failure worth noting. Especially in contrast to his ex-partner who, between arrest and trial, had hurried to spawn -- more cynical observers may conclude that fits a well-described sociopathic profile. In any case, comparing highly questionable characters like these two reminds me of the old adage about arguing over the tallest dwarf.
Without irony I was told that:
o having a spine and saying what you believe is preferable - but given I said what I believe ...
o I should adjust my attitude - because telling people to adjust their attitude is wrong.
Several people observed that they themselves weren't personally offended -- good for you chaps! -- but sadly extrapolated that to conclude that anyone who disagreed on the no-kids == failure assessment was therefore wrong, via some breathtaking inductive logic.
Unsurprisingly, someone who thinks PHP is 'the best' struggled to cogently describe their position, but did allude to being too smart to be offended by any claims of being a failure (I guess php guys develop a thick skin) and then proceeded to react to increasingly bad-faith interpretrations of my initial en passant suggestion.
> - Have no kids
Adjusting that attitude, or at least never saying that bit out loud, may win you more friends.
Other than that, with hindsight, yes, it can all be painted as a series of bad decisions - however I'm sure at the time every decision that got him to where he is now made perfect sense, and was at least a good decision given the information available to him then.
I read Bad Blood, and have tracked stories about the key players, but we don't really know what each player's exit strategy actually was.
Hers seems to have been to eventually produce the tech she claimed her company already had. He may have bought into that dream, or planned to cut and run at some point (or both at different times).