Over the weekend I was enlightened, brought more inward to the world of html and css. On the horizon is a brand new website for Serve Rhode Island.
In any case, during my exploration I started reading a story that my html/css guru sent me. It is a story from 2000 about Jamie Zawinski, hacker and nightclub owner. This is a true story about a real man whose plight led him to buy a night club. I only hope that my plight will mimic Zawinski's at the age of almost-thirty, and that is, young, rich with nothing to do.
Bearing in mind the fact that this article was written in 2000, I was interested in this thought:
"High-tech millionaires have a long history of being boring with their money. Fast cars, big houses, yachts, planes - for a group of people who are supposed to be so abstracted from the material world that small matters like personal hygiene can slip by unnoticed, most of the wealth generated by the Internet bubble has gone to the same old same old, what the rich have been buying with their cash for generations.
That will change. The most dramatic period of capital creation in the history of the world has left the country's urban centers awash with people who are young, smart, non-traditional and very well off."
Interesting, huh? That was ten years ago now. Is this still happening?
Tangent:
I think it is possible to think about this minus the amount of money someone has. This is because, the previous quote outlines two kinds of people, both of which are "well off." There are those who spend their money buying the same shit as their rich predecessors bought and those who are "young, smart and non-tradition and well off." Removing money from each of these types of people extinguishes the first type of person, this is because they are defined by their materials, that is, the shit they buy, the same shit as their predecessors, like cars.
Removing money from the second type of person still leaves them, "young, smart and non-traditional.
Tangential Tangent:
Can this be mathematical?
(people, well-off, who have been buying the same shit for generations = x,
people who are young, smart, non-traditional and well off =y
being "well off"= z)
x-z=0
y-z=young, smart and non-traditional
Haha.
Right then, anyway, the article continues to posit that these remaining young, smart and non-traditional persons (specifically, the author is talking about hackers as a class, the class of which Jamie Zawinski is one) put society, circa 2000, in a peculiar, particular and unique position,
"The country stands at the cusp of an enormous sociology experiment: what happens when you give smart, creative people the means to pursue their ideas? "In the case of Jamie Zawinski, he opened a night club- a man who values night-life and values good music venues but who was keen enough to observe the gradual crumbling of the San Francisco scene, got an idea. Zawinski's idea for the DNA Lounge in 2000 was intended to be a solution to a social problem.
But what about now? I think the question now, that is, in 2010 is: How have the ideas that have been pursued by these smart, creative people panned out?
Obviously a better story, on my part, would include more examples of people like Zawinski, but after reading this I wanted to see if the DNA Lounge worked out. According to their website, DNA Lounge is hopping!
Another question I have is: How will the ideas of smart creative people arise over the next decade, considering that economically and politically we are in such a different place than we were in 2000.
Even in the midst of a recession, there are still creative, smart people with good ideas. Even if the budget has gotten smaller, the ideas have probably gotten larger and more detailed in order to troubleshoot for the lack of pocket cash.
Here is to 2010, and another decade of smart, creative people having good ideas and making them happen!
And one more great thing that happened a decade ago
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment