> You have a fantastical view of what starting and running business entails

Have you started a successful business? Can you honestly say you spent less than 90 hours per week on it? Can you honestly say the vast majority of your time wasn't spent on "business things" instead of deeply technical product development? You keep just generically hinting that I'm wrong without actually saying how.

> Maybe you should write a manifesto in your cabin in the woods.

It's awful that Kaczynski resorted to terrorism, because his manifesto is a respected piece of writing and philosophical thought. I see it recommended every so often even on HN (always with a denouncement of his actual actions). Don't worry about me: hurting anyone else would be deeply opposed to my goal of making a positive impact. But saying my ideas sound like Kaczynski's is not as big a neg as you might think.

> If you are a 'poor' software engineer I suspect it's not because the world just failed to recognize your genius.

Weird assumptions. I'm not poor, and many people have said that I'm a genius, and it means fuck-all. I don't feel under-recognized, I feel under-utilized. Being a genius, being an expert, means nothing. That's my point. Why bother?

> In the specific domain of Software Engineering there is a clear path to success, talent is recognized and is almost always very well compensated.

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 and you've got friends that recommended you and you're willing to sell your soul to help some psychopath get more clicks for his Facebook for Dogs website. And even then, no, it's notoriously hard to measure the talent of one engineer vs. another.

> Are you Grandmaster or above on Codeforces? Do you have IOI/IOM Medals? Did you win an ICPC Medal? Did you rank on the Putnam? Have you gotten job offers at Jane Street/HRT/Citadel/ETC? Are you Staff level or above at a FAANG? If you haven't done at least one of those how can you seriously think you are world class?

"Class" is right. These are class indicators more than talent indicators. Strengthening my point that people have warped views of what "talent" is. Is that what you think talent is? Someone who grinds leetcode?

Even if I accept your premise, what are those people doing? Working as a quant? 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!

Yes, if money is all you care about, becoming a quant is a good idea. That's not becoming an expert, that's knowing how to play the exact game you need to get hired there. The quants at Jane Street are not "more expert" than the exploited game developers making five figures at Blizzard.

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".