So Jobs was lower middle class, and led Apple to be the biggest company in the world.

Middle class is different from someone in the actual lower-class, which more Americans are than in the middle.

Yeah, a few bucks. So much money that he started Apple by selling his Beetle. A sorry state that probably 95% of Americans are above.

You're ignoring the 'punishment' aspect of that sentence. The 'cash' comment was meant to highlight that people (brighter people than Jobs, at that) have been driven to suicide for non-commercial unauthorized access to systems, let alone selling ways of exploiting them.

You're also entirely ignoring that access to the brightest, richest, and most-influential people in an industry isn't something your average youth can get in the modern age. Along with the location aspect.

The word "college" does not appear in Edison's biography by Josephson until after he invented the light bulb. [...] I'm going to need to see a cite for your Edison claim that he was a privileged youth.

I double-checked the last biography I've read of him (Conot's, which is exceptional, although you might dislike it), and I misremembered on the count of it being in his childhood that he attended college. However, it was before he invented the lightbulb (citations [1] [2]), and you didn't try to contest that his career's beginning was based on a single lucky event.

And you can take MIT classes FOR FREE on youtube!

You went to Caltech, and talk about it frequently. Surely you realize the value of being able to have a conversation with professors, peers & (especially) the libraries, resources and networking available in universities? Do you see it as just a strange coincidence that a significant amount of people you shared dorms and classes with went on to be incredibly influential?

Surely your view isn't biased in that Caltech was heading a revolution in computing during your years of attendence (mainly at the end of them, where it saw perhaps the single most revolutionary change in how computing was done since it happened), with some of the absolute brightest people in the field? That you and your peers were in spitting-distance of Carver Mead couldn't have played a role in your view (and your/your peers' successes)?

You'd have never heard of me if I'd believed that getting somewhere was not under my control, and if I'd believed the endless stream of people telling me I had zero chance.

I've heard of a lot of people who've achieved little commercial success, and I've heard of a lot of people who achieved little commercial success while also having some of the most impressive technical achievements across the board. I've also seen the reverse; people who've achieved significant amounts of commercial success while having relatively few people knowing of them.

As a counterexample on the extreme edge of things, similar to your examples, what about Terry Davis? He had more determination than just about anyone could claim. He had technical chops as well. He died impoverished and mentally insane. Kildall died rich yet virtually-unknown and heavily-ridiculed.

Oh, here's a good one! Iverson died with incredible technical achievements yet little wealth and little influence. Despite what are arguably more impressive achievements than your own, Iverson is probably known by less people than you are, and his goals were never accomplished, despite a lifelong-dedication to them. I'm not sure how you started out, but Iverson started out poor enough to where he never finished high school.

All things considered, if you're right, then why isn't free software running the world? Stallman's probably more determined than anyone else in the industry, was arguably incredibly-competent at his peak, and...lost, failing at most of his goals.

Chuck Moore tried over and over and over again. Came up with things that could undeniably be called best-in-class, both in the hardware realm and in the software one. Normal guy with no strange habits, intense personality-quirks, or foot-gunning idealism. Born poor in Flint, Michigan. Failed every single time due to little more than luck.

I'm not (nor is anyone in this thread, to my knowledge) trying to claim your success was all luck. Surely it's not. However, I do think there's a significant amount of luck involved for all commercial success, and that individual effort isn't the largest factor in whether or not a person finds it.

I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions. I imagine I can't change your mind, but I'm confounded as to why that's the case. Thanks for humoring me with a conversation, though; I do appreciate it!

[1] http://faculty.cooper.edu/topper/general/edison.html

[2] https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/for-sesquicent...