4 ms·

The interesting bit for me is how she doesn't say a single interesting thing. What has she actually done in her life, other than writing cheques that total 70

The interesting bit for me is how she doesn't say a single interesting thing. What has she actually done in her life, other than writing cheques that total 70 million? I don't know, and I've read the entire interview. We really have a crisis of imagination, both on the behalf of the poor and the rich. The poor want to be rich, the rich go to restaurants, buy shoes and write cheques. This is the sad bit about rich people - they just can't seem to figure out that you can't make someone interesting, by sending them to Oxford, Harvard, etc. They're just bored, or maybe it's just me, bored and grumpy, of reading HackerNews :)

rococode 8y ago
You're right that she doesn't say much about what she's done, but I think that wasn't the point of the interview. The interview was intended to explore the lifestyle of someone who grew up in a super rich family, and the questions are clearly worded to get at that. None of the questions ask about her accomplishments, so of course she doesn't talk about them.
onychomys 8y ago
I count writing checks to charity as doing something with your life. If she wanted to do nothing at all except sit in her undies on the couch watching netflix and also give $70M away, that's a life well lived.
joefourier 8y ago
Now would be a good time for the return of the "gentleman scientist" of the 19th century. Not just passively giving money away to worthy organizations, but educating yourself enough to be an authority in that field. Wealth on the order of hundreds of millions affords your own private research team with a good enough budget for many fields, the possibility of pursuing high-risk basic research with no expectation of immediate financial gain and the ability to sidestep the trappings of the academic environment. It will be impossible to have more money than you can spend in that scenario - the capital demands of global scientific research far exceed the liquid net worth of any single human individual.
- philipkglass 8y ago
  David E. Shaw is living the dream: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Shaw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Shaw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._E._Shaw_Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._E._Shaw_Research

rococode 8y ago

You're right that she doesn't say much about what she's done, but I think that wasn't the point of the interview. The interview was intended to explore the lifestyle of someone who grew up in a super rich family, and the questions are clearly worded to get at that. None of the questions ask about her accomplishments, so of course she doesn't talk about them.

onychomys 8y ago

I count writing checks to charity as doing something with your life. If she wanted to do nothing at all except sit in her undies on the couch watching netflix and also give $70M away, that's a life well lived.

joefourier 8y ago

Now would be a good time for the return of the "gentleman scientist" of the 19th century. Not just passively giving money away to worthy organizations, but educating yourself enough to be an authority in that field. Wealth on the order of hundreds of millions affords your own private research team with a good enough budget for many fields, the possibility of pursuing high-risk basic research with no expectation of immediate financial gain and the ability to sidestep the trappings of the academic environment. It will be impossible to have more money than you can spend in that scenario - the capital demands of global scientific research far exceed the liquid net worth of any single human individual.

philipkglass 8y ago
David E. Shaw is living the dream: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Shaw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Shaw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._E._Shaw_Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._E._Shaw_Research