> Essentially, I'm not impressed by the reasoning displayed here. Agreed, the examples aren‘t perfect. But what I liked about the article was it’s intended int

> Essentially, I'm not impressed by the reasoning displayed here. Agreed, the examples aren‘t perfect. But what I liked about the article was it’s intended interoperability and non-specifics. It thus clarifies it’s main statements (for me at least): - starting the long game appears never as worthwhile as keep playing the short game - but playing long, compounds day by day - but sadly, playing short does so too Other commenters already mentioned it: those are the same mechanics of the poverty trap