Ask HN: Would you rather be famous or rich if you couldn't have both?

What does 'rich' mean here? $1 million? $10 million? $100,000? $1 billion? How 'famous' am I? Household name? Famous among people who like [area of interest]? This is a sliding scale based on how much money vs how famous/how widely famous I'd be. That said I'd say if you chose a random (reasonable) amount of money and a random (reasonable) amount of fame, on average I'd choose money more often, probably always if the sums were large enough to make meaningful differences in the financial viability of good but not-well-known nonprofits, or expand the ability of nonprofits that are on ok financial footing but could be doing more stuff. Or maybe just buy up swaths of the Amazon (if developers can buy it why can't random Pittsburghers?).

I have neither. Fame and wealth are supposed to be means to happiness. People treat them as ends.

Achievements don't end with retirement. Some ideas have a "right time", and I look forward to fostering them, even if someone else gets the limelight.

Those are my only choices and I have to be one of them?

If "famous" means known and respected amongst my peers, then famous. If "famous" means being known by the general population, then rich.

Rich. Why would I want to be famous?

There are some people who prune their business to prevent it from growing past the point of becoming a dot on the radar.

There are places where you have to do this to a certain extent because if you get hot enough, all sorts of predators see you.

Some people would consider real privilege to be having power in the background but not a lot of visibility that could get you in trouble and constrain your action.

Fame is ego and expectations. Rich is quiet freedom. You'd be a fool to pick the first one.

Being famous seems horrible