5 ms·

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, the

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.
        whybroke 12y ago
        While your link is at least an intellectually honest attempt at analysis, the graph you link to shows that disability claims were flat just when welfare was falling the fastest (1996 – 99) 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.
  - 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.

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.
        whybroke 12y ago
        While your link is at least an intellectually honest attempt at analysis, the graph you link to shows that disability claims were flat just when welfare was falling the fastest (1996 – 99) 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.
- 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.