51–60 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I had that wealth I would still keep coding... just for fun and for the sake of coding! Probably I would focus on something extraordinary, like robotics or AI.
Then why don't you focus on robotics or AI right now? Life is too short for NOT focusing on something you find extraordinary.
Americans are materially wealthy relative to most of the rest of the world. I would suspect (without having any sort of citation to support it) that, when compared to Americans, most of the people who have ever lived in any time and in any country have known nowhere near the standard of living represented by a $60K annual income in the U.S. today. If that assumption is true, and if the premise of this piece is also c…
I think the key to the $60K happiness threshold is that it represents being in the top 20% income bracket. Standard of living may be lower elsewhere, however, an individual's relative wealth (especially with respect to peers) is probably what's really relevant: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3315638/Rela...
With respect to the "remembering self", the reflective state, the more money you earn the more satisfied you are. Or to paraphrase Socrates:
The unexamined life is not worth living, unless you are poor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I had that wealth I would still keep coding... just for fun and for the sake of coding! Probably I would focus on something extraordinary, like robotics or AI.
Then why don't you focus on robotics or AI right now? Life is too short for NOT focusing on something you find extraordinary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hold the same philosophy with regard to cigarettes. I'll decide for myself what's carcinogenic, thank you very much.
I am afraid that saying cirgarettes are carcinogenic is a simple fact. It has been established strongly that they increase the risk of cancer, and that is the very definition of the word. With that said, I support your right to decide for yourself what is an acceptable level of risk for you and to enjoy them if you please. I choose to refrain, but that is my choice and you have every right to make a different one.
Kahneman says that at $60K a year your direct experience of happiness flatlines. But our perception of how happy we are increases with the amount of money we make, far beyond the $60K.
There's two types of happiness, how happy we are and how happy we think we are and the two correlate only at a .5.
The flatlining question is "How happy are you right now?" The question that increases with wealth is "How happy are you?"
Which is a fairer representation of how people understand happiness?
Nop, happiness is about having $10M in assets and earning $1M a year in royalties. Believe me. Until then, keep coding...
If I had that wealth I would still keep coding... just for fun and for the sake of coding! Probably I would focus on something extraordinary, like robotics or AI.
Americans are materially wealthy relative to most of the rest of the world. I would suspect (without having any sort of citation to support it) that, when compared to Americans, most of the people who have ever lived in any time and in any country have known nowhere near the standard of living represented by a $60K annual income in the U.S. today. If that assumption is true, and if the premise of this piece is also c…
I think the key to the $60K happiness threshold is that it represents being in the top 20% income bracket. Standard of living may be lower elsewhere, however, an individual's relative wealth (especially with respect to peers) is probably what's really relevant: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3315638/Rela...