120 pointsby delaugust8 hours ago22 comments
  • rglover5 hours ago
    This is the paradox of the post social media world. I see a lot of mid-tier talent—in all sorts of disciplines/industries—being elevated, while what I personally consider the "greats" get a fraction of the attention (e.g., this designer who I love and have bought stuff from but seems to be a relative unknown [1]).

    The book "Do the Work" explained it well: "The amateur tweets. The pro works." People who fit into the Shell Silverstein "I'm so good I don't have to brag" bucket aren't as visible because they're working, not talking about working.

    Something fairly consistent I've observed: the popular people you see tweeting and on every podcast are likely not very good at what they're popular for.

    Sometimes there's overlap, but it's the exception, not the rule.

    [1] https://xtian.design/

    • spondylosaurus2 hours ago
      There's the old paradox about self-help gurus and how they're rarely successful because they take their own advice, but because they get paid to share their advice... I feel like the "mid-tier creative who's famous on socials" phenomenon is similar, although I couldn't exactly say how.
    • jjmarran hour ago
      The Giving Tree (by Shel Silverstein) came out in the same year my dad was born. But my parents still read it to me.

      I still don't understand why I have such a strong reaction to the book. It feels like the message is "take care of your parents instead of just taking from them".

    • begueradjan hour ago
      It's not hard work or talent that brings fame, recognition or promotion at any workplace of any industry.
    • pixl975 hours ago
      I mean advertising is advertising. You could have the best program in the world but if no one knows about it chances are you're not going to get rich.

      Now I'm not much for salespeople in general, but I do understand their purpose.

      • tough4 hours ago
        This is more true for indie hackers or solo team founders i guess, if you're just a designer in a big corp, you don't usually handle marketing beyond trying to build/design a marketeable product, devrel and other positions are more marketing like
      • godelskian hour ago
        Honestly, that seems like a solvable problem. Certainly not easy, certainly tremendously difficult, but I'm not sure it is impossible nor that we can't make strides in that direction. We're fundamentally talking about a search algorithm, with specific criteria.

        I doubt there would be good money in creating this, but certainly it would create a lot of value and benefit many just from the fact that if we channel limited resources to those more likely to create better things, then we all benefit. I'd imagine that even a poorly defined metric would be an improvement upon the current one: visibility. I'm sure any new metric will also be hacked but we're grossly misaligned right now and so even a poorly aligned system could be better. The bar is just really low.

      • rf15an hour ago
        > you're not going to get rich

        which shouldn't be a goal onto itself, unless you really want to get completely detached and insane like every other billionaire.

  • pelagic_sky6 hours ago
    As a designer, I know some absolutely amazing artists who just hunker down and produce phenomenal art/designs and I am not fluffing here. As a climber, I also know of climbers who are at the best in the world level, but don’t post sends on IG or muck about in socially promoting themselves. It’s great to know that there are extremely talented people doing their thing and it’s not driven by leaderboards or social clout.
  • alissa_v15 minutes ago
    Butler's piece is spot on. It reminds me of those core open-source tools we all depend on daily but rarely think about the people behind them. Like, who actually knows the name of the person who maintains requests in Python? Probably very few, yet their work is fundamental. That quiet contribution feels like the real definition of impactful design, way beyond the noise of social media.
  • DudeOpotomus7 hours ago
    This is well written. It also seems to describe society at large, especially our current society. So many things work so well, they become invisible. After time, people dont even realize how much is working behind the scenes to make everything work well and they assume we dont need those things.
    • setsewerd2 hours ago
      It's the same logic that's behind the declining vaccination rates unfortunately. Things could get pretty bad if that trend doesn't reverse.
  • abtinf7 hours ago
    In fact, becoming known takes an enormous amount of energy dedicated toward that purpose.
    • mattgreenrocks5 hours ago
      Yes. And time is zero sum. So you end up with people who see no issue with sinking lots of time into audience building.

      I’d rather do the thing than talk about it. Or, frankly, watch/listen/read others.

      • famahar4 hours ago
        I read an interesting thread about this in relation to game dev. Development is ugly, so a lot of audience building and investor potential comes from creating visually appealing gameplay demos and mechanics. Often they are made separate from the core of the game. All that time spent making engaging content ends up compromising the development process and turning it into more of a show reel, rather than a fully functioning holistic game.
    • ilrwbwrkhv5 hours ago
      [flagged]
      • stavros4 hours ago
        Of course you'd have to pay 700k if you're basically rejecting anyone who's ever been online. The candidate pool is, like, three people.
      • codr74 hours ago
        I use LinkedIn to find jobs; and to troll the self applauding, back patting influencer crowd for fun.
      • sorcerer-mar4 hours ago
        Uhh... having a LinkedIn takes like 10 minutes spent once. For most industries it's a pretty obvious investment to make yourself reachable by anyone who might be looking for you and to have an added data point of legitimacy (as in simply "is this a real human being emailing me")

        Your heuristic is extremely bad.

  • wanderingmind5 hours ago
    One of the reasons I love listening to 99% Invisible podcast[1]. Not just a great designer is unknown, but the hallmark of a great design is that its almost invisible unless you look for it.

    [1] https://99percentinvisible.org/

  • spiritplumber6 hours ago
    This was my experience in the "maker movement" in the 2010s. You may know me from OpenRov, RobotsAnywhere/CellBots, and the NAVCOM AI autopilot. But you probably don't.

    Who got attention? People who spent 20% of their time making and 80% self-promoting.

  • bdangubic3 hours ago
    works for SWEs too - I've had the pleasure working with a bunch of amazing SWEs in my almost 3 decades in the industry, 9 out of top 10 if I rank them do not have a Github account or blog or post sht on "X" or wherever... Just do amazing sht at work and go home to their families :)
    • listenallyall2 hours ago
      Absolutely. And there are plenty of occupations where even a Michael Jordan level talent would go totally unknown and unappreciated. Accountant. Plumber. Chemist. Many more.
  • jackcosgrove2 hours ago
    I don't think it's just about doing vs talking.

    There are people who are great at something not because they do novel work, but because they redo known work that's really hard.

    Not everyone has the luxury of knowing where the frontier lies and working at it. Many, many people reinvent the wheel simply because they don't know that what they're trying has already been done. And they can redo the work in a great way.

    Of course they'll never get credit for this.

  • econ2 hours ago
    It's easy. You just compare your thing to everything similar and keep at it until you are convinced yours is miles ahead. Other opinions are irrelevant.
  • spamjavalin6 hours ago
    Remind me of the statement (I’m paraphrasing) ‘No one gets the credit for solving a problem that never happened’
  • cultofmetatron6 hours ago
    reminds me of this video I found the other day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcjdwSY2AzM&ab_channel=Verit...

    if I'm understanding correctly the implications of Emily Noether's work, its an absolute travesty that she isn't famous in the same breath as Einstein and Feynman. Yet this video was the first time I had even heard of her.

    • somenameforme2 hours ago
      Einstein's discovery explained a centuries old mystery that people, including every major mind of the time, were completely and fundamentally on the wrong track towards. All without being able to find any academic position that would have him - he was working as a low ranking patent inspector at the time. And that discovery completely reshaped physics, which many at the time thought had been mostly 'solved' and was down to a measuring game.

      I think a parallel would be if some random guy, outside of academia, completely and cleanly solved the dark energy/matter mystery in his spare time, with a revolutionary way of thinking, and it completely reshaped our understanding of not only the cosmos but of physics itself.

      Becoming well known for advanced works in science requires a once in many centuries type level of achievement - which is what Einstein was. Feynman is a great example of this. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest physicists of all time and made many important contributions to science, yet he would probably be relatively unknown if not for his excessive public outreach and his exceptional ability to explain complex concepts in an extremely intuitive and clear fashion. A talent which he put to extensive use.

    • MoonGhost4 hours ago
      There are many great scientists you've never heard about. Soviet side of the world was almost as big as western. Yet they got only a very few nobel prices. It was absurd when western derivative got, but not the original work.
      • rablackburn2 hours ago
        Do you have any recommendations for where we could read more about the soviet originals/western derivatives? I’ve never heard that before (born after the collapse) and that sounds like a fascinating story.
    • esafak6 hours ago
      Physicists know her. Einstein was a public intellectual, Noether was not.
  • ilaksh4 hours ago
    People just don't know the difference between popularity and merit. Similarly, they don't know the difference between someone who is successful or good at what they do versus one who makes a lot of money.
  • eddieh5 hours ago
    You can be a great X and be completely unknown

    Where X is any vocation, skill, talent, etc…

  • ChrisMarshallNY7 hours ago
    I think that greatness of mind needs to be coupled with ambition, a certain level of arrogance and self-absorbtion, and a personality that doesn't make you a pariah.

    I suspect that combinations like that, are, indeed, as rare as hen's teeth.

    Many great talents probably couldn't be arsed to play the rat race game, and keep their domain humble, or they piss off other people so much, that they never get a break.

    • 5 hours ago
      undefined
    • handfuloflight6 hours ago
      Why does it have to be arrogance and self absorption? Why not simply confidence and vision?
      • ChrisMarshallNY6 hours ago
        It certainly can be (I'm obviously not the expert on the traits), but arrogance (think Steve Jobs) means that there's less self-doubt, and less openness to outside counsel, which is normally a Very Bad Thing, but, if your own counsel [vision?] is very good, then maybe not so bad.

        In my time, I've worked with some top-shelf folks, who had many -but not enough- of the combination, to be mildly successful.

        Most of the best were extremely ... er ... confident. Some, it came across as rudeness, but others, would politely accept your counsel, and then instantly feed it to the shredder, without you ever knowing.

        I preferred the rude ones.

        • sublinear2 hours ago
          > I preferred the rude ones.

          Seeking social cues to describe greatness is exactly what the grift preys on.

      • vjvjvjvjghv3 hours ago
        There is a very fine line between all of these. When you look at famous people like Jobs, Zuckerberg, Musk or Gates they have all these attributes. Another example would be Michael Jordan in basketball or Michael Schumacher in racing.
  • codr74 hours ago
    Fame quickly becomes an obstacle to progress, it's the last thing I need in my life.
  • mylons7 hours ago
    you can be a great <insert w/e here> and be completely unknown. there are a lot of niche opportunities out there. you could be helping michelin star restaurant owners with a new booking website that just charges customers on their reservation and literally be set for life after that interaction.

    the last anecdote is a true story. one of the original owners of Alinea (Chicago) did just that and the guy who developed the site is quite literally set for life if he doesn't do anything else but also has this incredible in within the fine dining world now.

    • tptacek2 hours ago
      I feel like the people in key roles at Tock were generally pretty high profile to begin with. Last time we talked in depth about Tock here on HN, Kokonas showed up.
  • Mathnerd3142 hours ago
    Hot take but you can be a terrible designer and be completely unknown too. I've been getting into music and there are a lot of wannabes and very few "gems hidden in the dirt" or whatever - if your music is good you'll at least be able to get some decent bookings.
  • snappr0217 hours ago
    If people did not give credit where credit is due.
  • 6 hours ago
    undefined
  • forrestthewoods5 hours ago
    I’ll go a step further. If someone is well known it’s more likely than not that they’re a charlatan. Not always of course. But if someone gives 6+ conference talks a year it’s like 80%+ chance they’re a dingleberry.

    The world is full of amazingly talented and hard working people. Almost all of them are not on social media.

  • motohagiography7 hours ago
    to me designers are the real architects of history, however, the cybertruck example as brash i disagree with for specific reasons.

    it is a perfect example of what it does without any deference to other design languages. instead of po-mo symbolism, it really is just the sufficient metal and glass to do the thing. an essential truck is unsentimental working capital. its not a duck, its an undecorated shed.

    i think the design will age very well because there's nothing to add to it.

    • blt2 hours ago
      The design shows a fundamental misunderstanding of sheet metal. Flat sheet metal is weak. Only curved sheet metal can be strong. Designs that lack mechanical sympathy with the materials in use don't tend to age well.
    • analog312 hours ago
      I don't disagree with you about its utilitarian aesthetics, even if it seems ugly to me. But an amusing irony is that most customers probably won't ever use it as a truck.
    • codr74 hours ago
      It's hands down the ugliest thing I've ever seen.
      • pcmaffey3 hours ago
        I call it the trash compactor