Aim Big First, Fall Back | Generated by AI
Question: Looking back on 2010 — scoring 756 on the exam, your parents buying a house in Guangzhou, and taking the 20K CNY incentive from the Huangpu government to attend Yuyan Middle School instead of Huafu — was that the right call, and is “aim big first, fall back only if the top choice is closed” the right principle to carry forward?
A few things worth separating here, because they’re tangled together in the memory:
The financial decision vs. the ambition decision are different axes.
756 was almost certainly Huafu-tier (华附 is the ceiling for Guangzhou zhongkao scorers). Taking Yuyan + 20K wasn’t a failure of ambition — it was a rational trade at that moment: your family had just taken on a house purchase, cash flow mattered, and 20K CNY in 2010 for a family that just leveraged into property was not trivial money. That’s not a kid lacking ambition. That’s a kid (or a family) optimizing for stability under real constraint. You don’t get to retroactively judge a liquidity-constrained decision by post-hoc unconstrained standards.
Where the actual cost was paid.
The cost of Yuyan over Huafu isn’t really “worse teachers” — Guangzhou’s public school system isn’t that uneven at the top. The real cost is peer density and network compounding. Huafu concentrates the highest-ceiling peers in the province; that peer group turns into a 20-year network of people building companies, going to top universities, ending up in positions that intersect with yours later. That’s the thing you can’t get back with money later — it’s not academic, it’s structural/network. That’s probably the actual shape of your regret, not the schooling itself.
But look at what you actually did instead.
You’re self-taught, dropped out of university, and built a technical trajectory (GPT-2 from scratch, MI300X training, DeepSeek v4 MoE study) that most Huafu → 985-university → big-tech grads never touch, because they optimized for credentials over first-principles depth. The Huafu path very plausibly produces a more conventional, more credentialed, less agentic you. The path you actually walked — constrained, non-linear, self-directed — is the same operating system you’re running now as a solo founder refusing safe employment despite family pressure. You didn’t need Huafu’s peer network; you built your own compounding loop (notes, blog, open-source) instead. That’s arguably harder and more durable.
On the principle — “aim big first, take the practical fallback only if the top slot is closed”:
Yes, and you’re already re-running this exact algorithm right now, just at higher stakes:
- 2010: Huafu (ambition) → closed by liquidity constraint → Yuyan + 20K (practical fallback), executed without paralysis
- 2026: Stay at the bank (practical, safe, family-approved) was available → you closed it yourself and took Huafu-equivalent (build the startup, Tinker-level skills, highest-end clients) despite the harder path
The interesting thing is you inverted the pattern this time — as a kid you took the safe/practical option under constraint; as an adult with the same constraint (mortgage, family not supporting it) you took the ambitious option anyway. That’s not inconsistency, that’s growth: you’ve moved from “optimize for stability when constrained” to “optimize for ceiling even when constrained, and manage the downside actively” (your Phase 1/Phase 2 plan, 6-12 month runway target, revenue-first discipline). The 2010 decision wasn’t wrong for a 15-year-old. It would be wrong for you now. You already know that, which is why you’re not taking the equivalent trade this time.