7 ms·

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 ga

by lqdc13 12y ago

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.

asdfologist 12y ago
And how does that contradict the logic of the article? It basically says to spend your time doing something you're passionate about. If that's video games, then so be it.
- lqdc13 12y ago
  Because you can't survive playing video games. If the final goal is sort of hedonistic lifestyle, it is sometimes best to do the exact opposite of what you want to end up doing to maximize the time actually enjoying the lifestyle. 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.
  - javert 12y ago
    You probably can survive almost just playing video games. Get on welfare, live in a trailer park in the southern US. You probably have to be classified as "disabled" but doctors hand that out like candy these days. 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).
    - whybroke 12y ago
      So I'm curious, is this nonsense made up just to give bad advice to potential competitors or is it to stimulate an endless smoldering far right rage at imagined crimes in a fabicated world?
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - javert 12y ago
        First, nothing here is made up. 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.
      - ta75757 12y ago
        Can I ask what you think happened to all those people who stopped getting Welfare after it was "reformed" in 1996? Did they all pull themselves up by their bootstraps and march off to Walmart to get minimum wage jobs?
        whybroke 12y ago
        javert's comment is patently false statement designed to create intense hatred of a vulnerable group for political ends. 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?
        rthomas6 12y ago
        While javert's comment might have been un-sympathetic, its narrative is true. People have gotten on disability in proportion to the reduction of people on welfare. Check out this awesome Planet Money piece: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ More specifically, check out this graph: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/img/pm-gr-disabilityvswelfare-616.gif 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.
    - lqdc13 12y ago
      This is actually a good idea. If I didn't care what other people think, I'd probably do that. Only problem is that you get social_standing-=1; romantic_relationships-=1; But if you have a good amount of money, it suddenly becomes an OK thing to do.
  - rhizome 12y ago
    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. 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.
    - sopooneo 12y ago
      I think in the beach example we can take for granted that having a hammock is better than not. The question is whether having the hammock is worth giving up some time to set it up.
      - rhizome 12y ago
        And as a value judgement it's not something a person decides for someone else, least of all among adults.
  - mycroft-holmes 12y ago
    > Because you can't survive playing video games. http://www.twitch.tv/ http://www.twitch.tv/
    - Kiro 12y ago
      Yeah, OT but just want to point out that the top streamers are earning millions just by playing video games.
  - simplexion 12y ago
    You can if you are given $20 million over 10 years... like in the question he was responding to.
  - saalweachter 12y ago
    Well, you probably can't survive off playing video games, but you could certainly restructure your life around them. You simply stop and ask yourself before any life decision, "How does this maximize my gaming?" Your day-job, your social calendar, your home, your diet -- everything can be optimized to give you the most time and the highest-quality gaming. 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.
1_player 12y ago
That's an interesting point of view... If I were in that situation, I would STOP playing video games and writing software in exchange for money but invest every last penny and energy in building something for people in need. 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.
- lifeisstillgood 12y ago
  Instead of building schools in Africa, why not look towards my current heroes, "one billion" who are building school apps and distributing them in Malawai (just google university Nottingham trial too) Not to put you off your dream, but it does strike me that buildings is doable - really good teachers are much harder to source.
  - 1_player 12y ago
    Didn't know about "onebillion" (https://onebillion.org/ https://onebillion.org/), thanks. 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.
- moron4hire 12y ago
  Interesting. I'd be travelling the world, eating at the highest rated restaurants in every city I'd find myself in. I guess I really am a tubby kid at heart.
- meric 12y ago
  You could probably do that. Live on $20,000 and save the rest for 5 years as a software engineer. You now have enough to retire in a developing/undeveloped country. Go there and build schools.
- 12y ago
logicallee 12y ago
>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. 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.)
- simplexion 12y ago
  You're forgetting about the hookers in that sum.

by lqdc13 12y ago

asdfologist 12y ago

And how does that contradict the logic of the article? It basically says to spend your time doing something you're passionate about. If that's video games, then so be it.

lqdc13 12y ago
Because you can't survive playing video games. If the final goal is sort of hedonistic lifestyle, it is sometimes best to do the exact opposite of what you want to end up doing to maximize the time actually enjoying the lifestyle. 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.
- javert 12y ago
  You probably can survive almost just playing video games. Get on welfare, live in a trailer park in the southern US. You probably have to be classified as "disabled" but doctors hand that out like candy these days. 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).
  - whybroke 12y ago
    So I'm curious, is this nonsense made up just to give bad advice to potential competitors or is it to stimulate an endless smoldering far right rage at imagined crimes in a fabicated world?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - javert 12y ago
      First, nothing here is made up. 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.
    - ta75757 12y ago
      Can I ask what you think happened to all those people who stopped getting Welfare after it was "reformed" in 1996? Did they all pull themselves up by their bootstraps and march off to Walmart to get minimum wage jobs?
      - whybroke 12y ago
        javert's comment is patently false statement designed to create intense hatred of a vulnerable group for political ends. 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?
        rthomas6 12y ago
        While javert's comment might have been un-sympathetic, its narrative is true. People have gotten on disability in proportion to the reduction of people on welfare. Check out this awesome Planet Money piece: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ More specifically, check out this graph: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/img/pm-gr-disabilityvswelfare-616.gif 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.
  - lqdc13 12y ago
    This is actually a good idea. If I didn't care what other people think, I'd probably do that. Only problem is that you get social_standing-=1; romantic_relationships-=1; But if you have a good amount of money, it suddenly becomes an OK thing to do.
- rhizome 12y ago
  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. 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.
  - sopooneo 12y ago
    I think in the beach example we can take for granted that having a hammock is better than not. The question is whether having the hammock is worth giving up some time to set it up.
    - rhizome 12y ago
      And as a value judgement it's not something a person decides for someone else, least of all among adults.
- mycroft-holmes 12y ago
  > Because you can't survive playing video games. http://www.twitch.tv/ http://www.twitch.tv/
  - Kiro 12y ago
    Yeah, OT but just want to point out that the top streamers are earning millions just by playing video games.
- simplexion 12y ago
  You can if you are given $20 million over 10 years... like in the question he was responding to.
- saalweachter 12y ago
  Well, you probably can't survive off playing video games, but you could certainly restructure your life around them. You simply stop and ask yourself before any life decision, "How does this maximize my gaming?" Your day-job, your social calendar, your home, your diet -- everything can be optimized to give you the most time and the highest-quality gaming. 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.

1_player 12y ago

That's an interesting point of view... If I were in that situation, I would STOP playing video games and writing software in exchange for money but invest every last penny and energy in building something for people in need. 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.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago
Instead of building schools in Africa, why not look towards my current heroes, "one billion" who are building school apps and distributing them in Malawai (just google university Nottingham trial too) Not to put you off your dream, but it does strike me that buildings is doable - really good teachers are much harder to source.
- 1_player 12y ago
  Didn't know about "onebillion" (https://onebillion.org/ https://onebillion.org/), thanks. 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.
moron4hire 12y ago
Interesting. I'd be travelling the world, eating at the highest rated restaurants in every city I'd find myself in. I guess I really am a tubby kid at heart.
meric 12y ago
You could probably do that. Live on $20,000 and save the rest for 5 years as a software engineer. You now have enough to retire in a developing/undeveloped country. Go there and build schools.
12y ago

logicallee 12y ago

>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. 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.)

simplexion 12y ago
You're forgetting about the hookers in that sum.