I am not sure if the logic makes sense for everyone.
If I had 10 years to live and got $20 million, I would immediately stop working and start playing video games to get as much in as possible before I die.
If I had 10 years to live and got $20 million, I would immediately stop working and start playing video games to get as much in as possible before I die.
But probably that's the reason I'm much too often dreaming of dropping everything, leaving to Africa to build schools. Too bad I'm a software engineer.
I don't dream of playing video games, I already do it too much, but it's interesting to know that someone does.
Not to put you off your dream, but it does strike me that buildings is doable - really good teachers are much harder to source.
Building schools in Africa is a metaphor of my actual "volunteering" desire: if I had infinite or just enough capital I would prefer to invest it in infrastructure and technology: building renewable energy power plants, internet connectivity to rural areas, research labs, etc.
Education is very important but most third world countries could benefit much more from technological self-sufficiency and expertise.
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/donation-items/build-a-school...
http://www.freethechildren.com/get-involved/toolkits/brick-b...
I'm working on an Ed Tech startup in Ghana myself (well it is my home land though I don't reside there) and that's mostly what I spend my time out of work on.
> Too bad I'm a software engineer.
No way, our skills are crucial for a continent that is rapidly embracing technology. The next billion to come online will need software that works for their contexts, and I think we're empowered to do that - while those more skilled in building solve those problems as well
It basically says to spend your time doing something you're passionate about. If that's video games, then so be it.
Sort of like you see a person setting up a hammock to lie in comfort and enjoy the beach. You tell him to stop setting up the hammock and just start enjoying the beach.
Assuming that the monetary restrictions no longer apply is not useful for almost any hedonistic outcome.
My aunt gets about $900 a month from the government and lives in subsidized housing, so that she only has to pay about $200 a month in rent. So income-wise she's doing a lot better than me (I am a grad student).
Second, I gave this advice because it would be incredibly sad to think, "I want to play video games all day, but unfortunately, I have to have a job." That is no way to live. I was trying to encourage the person above me to think about what he really wants.
Third, please don't go around snarkily second-guessing people's comments. My comments deserve to be taken at face value. I am tired having having to defend myself from unwarranted personal attacks.
A now deleted comment posted a link to a rambling diatribe as "evidence" (which just further proves my point). And mentioning any of this is described as a "personal attack". It's an interesting mixing of John Galt and Horst Wessel.
To answer your question, I presume eliminating aid to incapacitated people creates homelessness not walmart jobs.
Now can I ask you: what drives extremists to so thoroughly propagandize themselves that they derail their own ability to think clearly and do such demonstrable harm to their societies?
More specifically, check out this graph: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/img/pm-gr-disabilityvswel...
This does not mean that these people are bad or that we should end disability aid. But it's true... people are becoming "disabled" as a means of surviving.
And were rising the fastest when welfare also rose the fastest (1990-94). This would run contrary to even correlation let alone a causal relationship.
While it is certainly an interesting theory, apparently the situation is even more complicated.
And mentioning any of this is described as a "personal
attack".
I presume eliminating aid to incapacitated people
creates homelessness not walmart jobs.
what drives extremists to so thoroughly propagandize
themselves that they derail their own ability to think
clearly and do such demonstrable harm to their
societies?
No, the language "to get on welfare" you have to be "classified as disabled" but "doctors hand that out like candy" is not about anyone's aunt, it is designed to provoke hatred toward vulnerable people to further a political agenda.
Is the anecdotal evidence that uses the word "about" twice and is written to provoke yet more hate true? Well there are hate mongering anecdotes about Jews, priests and gays too. They are of equal value and are repeated with the same intent. Was he offended when this was pointed out?
>>..what drives extremists to so thoroughly propagandize themselves..
>..that's not what is happening here..
On the contrary, it is the only thing happening here.
social_standing-=1; romantic_relationships-=1;
But if you have a good amount of money, it suddenly becomes an OK thing to do.
Isn't this basically, "you're enjoying yourself wrong" moralizing condescension? And frankly, if I had a hammock available on the beach I would use it and skip the sand in my crack.
Yes of course you can't survive playing video games, because you also have to eat. I don't think that was in question.
Now, maybe games aren't your thing, but this ultimately applies to anything, hedonistic or industrial or altruistic. Whatever is most important to you -- gaming or family or mountain climbing or mathematics or civil rights -- you can restructure you life to maximize the amount of time or impact you have on that one thing. It doesn't really matter if it pays the bills.
wow that sentence didn't end up where I expected it to!
you listed one of the cheapest forms of entertainment in the world. (And a primary reason so many millions of teens are into it.)
you could play all the games you want for ten years, with like four complete TV or computer updates and all the games that interest you, for a total of $18K per year including basic living expenses. Leaving you 99.1% of the $20 million untouched (even though it is not such a huge sum of money.)