This type of saccharine feel-good prose irritates to no end. No, chances are you're not the exception to the rule of mediocrity; that's just a matter of statistics. Believing so in absence of hard evidence to the contrary is delusional and won't make things better.
Entrepeneurs fail every day. Hundreds, maybe thousands. Don't fall for the cheap words of encouragement.
[ADDENDUM: I still don't trust the "Most coders can't do FizzBuzz" meme that generally accompanies the flowery you're-a-special-snowflake-talk. Applicants maybe, but that doesn't say much. There's tons of decent programmers out there, and 99% of them won't get famous or found a sustainable business.]
Conversely, I see zero value in this kind of reactionarily pessimistic you're-average-at-everything-and-even-if-you're-good-you'll-probably-fail-anyway stuff that always turns up on any encouraging article.
You get zero points for being able to say "See, I was right" when someone fails. Completely aside from that, it's factually wrong; people on this site are quite likely to have skills and resources that the average person cannot comprehend. Being a "decent programmer" is a fabulously valuable skill in the modern world. You aren't guaranteed to be able to leverage it into capital right away, but if you work hard and get out of your own head it's fully achievable.
"I am not a special snowflake, the sun does not shine out of my ass. But, if I work hard and apply my skills creatively in areas where others aren't it doing it as much, I may well have a shot at something cool.
At least, a better shot than if I did nothing today"
Think about what you spend money on, and the people behind it. They might be making your lunch, bagging your groceries, or mowing your lawn. They are probably mediocre at it, but you pay them anyway.
Others will pay you decent money to do a mediocre job, and good money to do a good job, because you are the exception to the rule of being willing and able to do the thing for them at all. Most people who have problem X would rather pay money for you to solve some problem for them (even if your solution is mediocre) than solve it themselves, because that allows them to focus on solving whatever problem they care about or think they can get paid for.
Also, look at corporations in general. A lot of them are inefficient and it seems like a miracle that they can make any money at all. Yet they clear big bucks. If big lumbering TPS-churning corporations can create value, then so can agile me. If someone whose job it is to shuffle papers and write memos can make a large salary, then why shouldn't my command of programming be valuable?
All in all, I think it's better to have the belief "I am worth lots of money" than the opposite.
Please re-read the article--the author is absolutely not making the point you think he is. All he is saying is that hackers are less likely to be willing to pay for software than most people, so the fact that the typical hacker news reader is unwilling to pay for something doesn't mean that it isn't a viable product. It's a shame that the top comment on this article is attacking a straw-man argument.
I re-read the article and have to admit that you and everyone else here is in the right. Crucially, I misread this paragraph as the kind of self-glorification that happens to be way too common among so-called "makers":
> You see most people aren't hackers. Most people can't
> build a todo app. Most people can't use an API.
He doesn't draw a line between makers and programmers, but between makers and the general population. That is reasonable. I still maintain that the optimism is misplaced (product business is difficult, even for great developers) and that the FizzBuzz myth has gotten out of control.
Regarding the FizzBuzz myth, I think it's selection bias that makes us think it's just a myth. After all, everyone I work with would find the FizzBuzz problem child's play to the point where we, like you, don't trust that it's meaningful.
But having recently had the experience of going to a local job fair with the goal of looking for students to fill internships, I met with over 70 individuals that day. While we didn't administer the FizzBuzz test, I'm confident that less than a handful could have completed it during the interview process.
This is by no means concrete proof. But, I think for many of us, we suffer from selection bias, because even the worse people we work with are light years ahead of what the great majority of "programmers" can do.
Even if the stories are taken literally ("199 out of 200 applicants can't program!"), that number is itself inflated by selection bias the other direction - people who can't program don't get the job and apply at the next place. It's obviously not going to be reflective of the programmers on the other side of that wall.
He wasn't saying you aren't mediocre. He's just saying that often you don't see value in the things you already know how to do, because you assume others have the same problems and abilities that you do. Essentially he's just saying you need to step into your users' shoes better, it's not a feel good post.
I have the same problem, in that I tend to think that, if I can do it, that it must be trivial, when a lot of things that I can do at this point are not actually trivial for most people.
Still, I don't harbor the delusion that I could drop everything and write a $10k/month iPad app overnight. There's a lot of luck in that, and a lot of skills are required (marketing, presentation) that I wouldn't bet my career on me having.
I think it's worth it for people to try things that have a sub-50% chance of success if they'll learn something from it, and if they've limited their losses, but I think it's unreasonable to make major bets on not being in the N-1 out of N. The academic career racket is fueled by these sorts of unrealistic expectations (more specifically, by people who haven't figured out that the academic job market up-and-died a generation and a half ago).
Your response reads as if you didn't fully grasp the article, and instead attempted to extrapolate what it might say based on the first paragraph alone.
The author doesn't claim that readers are the exception to mediocrity. Nor does he claim that they are the exception to failure. The article is targeted at programmers. He's merely saying that programmers possess a unique perspective that makes them literally "exceptionally" cynical to paying for software. He's also pointing out that it's easy to incorrectly project one's own cynism onto others.
> There's tons of decent programmers out there, and 99% of them won't get famous or found a sustainable business.
I think we read this article differently. His point is that, programming-wise, it doesn't take a lot to make a successful business. He's saying that being mediocre is good enough.
Believing so in absence of hard evidence to the contrary is delusional and won't make things better.
Have you considered that if you had hard evidence, it wouldn't be a 'belief', it would be a known fact?
And from there, why humans have evolved an ability to believe ... at all? What function that provides in a mind? Beliefs don't have to accurately reflect reality for them to be useful in changing your behaviour for the better.
Yea but if I am the exception then you may have discouraged and prevented me from succeeding. If not, not much harm done right? All for what, so you can say I told you so 99% of the time?
If a comment like that can discourage you, you are not ready. It's like starting to train for a marathon and quickly forgetting the idea because you don't like your shoes, or something equally trivial.
If you think I exaggerate, try staying focused on your startup after months of investor rejection (which is the norm, by the way).
Yes it can discourage someone, especially if it adds up. My point is that it doesn't really help anyone. You're not doing anyone any favors letting them know a couple months ahead of time their chances are slim. They'll find out themselves if they're the 1% or 99%.
> I still don't trust the "Most coders can't do FizzBuzz" meme that generally accompanies the flowery you're-a-special-snowflake-talk.
Well of course, such talk misses the point. A "Coder" who can't do Fizzbuzz isn't a coder, or a programmer, or a hacker, or a computer scientist. It's a negative test, if you can't do it, then your not ready for a real programming gig yet.
I would wager a combination of bad curriculum, theory over actual programming, and people who followed the sunk costs fallacy to a career they didn't want.
In some ways, software is like law (or accounting) - why do we pay lawyers so much money, even though in many cases we can simply file the paperwork ourselves? Why do we pay someone else to file our taxes, while we can do it ourselves? Being a "decent lawyer" is a very valuable skill, so is being a "decent programmer" or "decent anything". Just because something is not difficult to do, doesn't mean people would actually do it. They are busy, they don't like to learn something new, programming doesn't interest them etc.
Every skill is valuable. What is trivial for us, could be very difficult for someone else, and vice versa.
> In some ways, software is like law (or accounting) - why do we pay lawyers so much money, even though in many cases we can simply file the paperwork ourselves?
This is because the simple case (ie, everything goes well) for both programming and most law (leave aside liitgation) are usually straightforward.
The problem comes in exception handling. This is the 80/20 pareto split (80% of labor done on 20% of scope) - at this point, even a good lawyer/programmer may have difficulties getting things to work properly.
Entrepeneurs fail every day. Hundreds, maybe thousands. Don't fall for the cheap words of encouragement.
[ADDENDUM: I still don't trust the "Most coders can't do FizzBuzz" meme that generally accompanies the flowery you're-a-special-snowflake-talk. Applicants maybe, but that doesn't say much. There's tons of decent programmers out there, and 99% of them won't get famous or found a sustainable business.]