> I don't feel under-recognized, I feel under-utilized. Being a genius, being an expert, means nothing. That's my point. Why bother?

Ah yes the 'genius' that just can't find anything useful to work on lol.

>Talent is recognized!? Sure, if you're living in one of about six tech hubs in the world and you're white or Asian and you're not too old and you're not a woman and you've graduated from a top 20% university

Actual geniuses generally have no problem getting into and graduating with honors from a top 50 University let alone the top 20%. Just because your mommy called you smart doesn't make it true...

>"Class" is right. These are class indicators more than talent indicators. Strengthening my point that people have warped views of what "talent" is. I

I'm sorry but if you research the IOI/IOM winners I think you'll find they are overwhelmingly low-middle to upper-middle class. Hardly the children of billionaires...

>Is that what you think talent is? Someone who grinds leetcode?

No but these are clear indicators OF talent. IF you are a genius programmer but you can't compete with ICPC winners or rank top of the world in Codeforces e.g. there is a serious argument to be made that you aren't in fact a genius programmer.

>That's my #2: "Work for a bank or fintech as a middleman trying to get that extra 0.01% rent on other people's labor". Those people aren't successful by any measure other than money. They are harming the world. They are a net negative. Good thing your parents hired a tutor for you to ace the Putnam, now you can help billionaire parasites suck more blood from the economy!

Even the biggest misanthrope in the world who actually thinks about this problem doesn't believe that Quants are net negative for the world lol.

None of the Putnam fellows I know were the children of billionaires nor did they have tutors lmao. They were on the team and practiced like hell to win. Again you just have a warped and incorrect view of reality.

>The quants at Jane Street are not "more expert" than the exploited game developers making five figures at Blizzard.

Game devs are generally good but it's incredibly obvious there is a skill gap between those two groups. To say otherwise is ignorant.

>The impression I'm getting from you is: you believe (1) money is the only possible measure of success, and (2) people who make more money are smarter and people who make less money are dumber. Those are both deeply wrong, both in the sense of "incorrect" and "disturbing".

Both completely wrong. You just aren't as smart as you think. Even if you were and you interviewed with my company or were raising money to start your own you would be a flat reject if you displayed even 10% of the attitude you show here.

You're just a fundamentally broken person. Your opinion of yourself is not based in reality. Your judgements of others are wrong. Your estimation of their motivations are flawed. You were the guy that got locked inside lockers in high school but you deserved it because you are an enormous pompous ass. You were the kid that stood up in lectures to deliver an unhinged incorrect rant when the Professor asked a question and the entire room groaned because you completely lack self awareness of your own lack of knowledge. Now you bitch and moan on the internet how no one in Petoskey recognizes your unmatched genius and they force you to work on the IT system for your local YMCA. You complain about losing the game when you never even attempted to play it. You're the overweight office worker who thinks he can play on an NBA team despite never making it past JV. You're no Ted Kaczynski, you're Al Bundy. You're just a C level player stuck in a bad LARP.