Dumb people aren't going to be doing the work of the smart people ever, no matter how tech evolves. The actual implication of AI being on the level of sentient beings instead of hyped-up token predictors is that the era of humanity is over. If AIs were literally capable of doing what CEOs want them to, we'd have far bigger problems to deal with than employment.
Yes, this is what I mean. It's not that talent doesn't exist, but it's never the case that people on the top of their domain work less hard than others. In fact, it's the opposite. People don't have talent, the talent has them.
> Probably one of the most ego-crushing realizations (if you're a nerd) is to discover that there are people out there MUCH more talented and higher performing than what you'll ever be, but with none of the obsession or pride. In other profession that's not really a topic. You can be a top performer in other professions, without a deep interest, clock out 4 daily, and never think about work outside work.
You could clock out, but I don't think the top performers ever stop thinking about work. Everything you've written here has to be wrong.
The job market is somewhat of a crapshot. A dice roll if you will. I got rejected from all kinds of place before I got a highly paid one from a Reddit post of all places. I got rejected from all kinds of places that only paid like 1/2 or 1/3 of what that job was paying, and I wasn't even looking for it at that time. It's been over for over half a year, and I wouldn't be able to replicate that sort of performance at will. Though at this point, I am not even looking for one and just working on my own projects since I have a lot saved up and barely spend anything.
One thing that I understand at my age of nearly 39 now is that success comes pretty hard, and luck plays a large role in it. As programmers all we can do is build and develop our skills, even if the world doesn't validate our efforts.
You're asking yourself what you are doing wrong, but you should be asking yourself what your goal is and focus on that. Is it really to just work for other people?
Opus has been amazingly useful at answering various statistics question that I had for it, and my current idea is a nested auction market theory inspired model. My biggest discovery is that replacing time with volume on the x axis (on a chart) and putting the bar duration on the bottom panel instead of volume normalizes the price movements and makes some of the profitable setups I've seen described in tape reading/price ladder trading courses actually visible on naked charts. A great insight I've gleamed is that variance should be proportional to volume instead of time or trade count. When plotted, it has the effect of expanding high volume areas, and compressing low volatility ones, which exposes trending price action much more readily. It honestly amazing, it's making me think that I could actually win at the trading game.
One takeaway from the book is that trend following strategies are really difficult to follow. Jesse Livermore had a 3 yearlong losing streak from 2011 - 2014 despite him following his rules. After the events of the book, he went short in 1929 and was reportedly worth over 100m in that time, a huge amount. Then he lost it all in the strongly mean reverting markets of the 1930s where his trend following strategy didn't work.
He was a problem gambler, but I think if we looked at top poker players of today, they'd all have some love the gamble in them. Jesse had godly tape reading skills that allowed him to beat the bucket shops at the start of his career.
After being kicked out of the bucket shops, he should have just become a floor trader and in all likelihood, he'd have had lower highs but would have fared a lot better overall. A lot of the trading cliches like cutting trading losses quickly, letting profits run, averaging up rather than down originate from this book. There is a reason people still talk about it 100 years after its publication. It's a good contender for the best trading book of all time.