diagnostic does not mean "not covered", it just means it moves out of the "zero cost even if you haven't met your deductible yet" categroy defined by the ACA, and into the regular category where you pay your deductible, copays and coinsurance
> I believe that in the US, there is a certain age, after which, they're covered.
There is a lot of confusion over this point, even among support agents for health insurance companies.
i) The Affordable Care Act specifies that all Marketplace health plans must cover colorectal cancer screening for adults 45 to 75 years at zero cost [i]. That means no copay and no coinsurance, even if you haven't met your deductible. You pay $0.
ii) That generally means that colonoscopies will be zero-cost for anyone in that age bracket, but only if it is a "screening". If you have symptoms, the service may be billed as diagnostic rather than preventative, which takes it out of the "zero cost" category
iii) All of the above is separate from whether the procedure is "covered" or not, because "covered" in the context of health insurance means "your plan covers this, subject to your normal deductible, copay and coinsurance, so long as it is medically necessary". If something is truly "not covered" then your insurance pays $0 and the provider will bill you the full, undiscounted cost of the procedure.
In other words, there is a difference between "your plan covers this (as it does for any other regular medical care)" and "your plan covers this at zero cost, as it falls into one of the narrowly defined 'preventative care' buckets as defined by the ACA"
It's common for people to confuse these things.
In your case, it sounds like the procedure was not covered at zero cost (as expected, as you are not in the 45-75 age bracket defined by the ACA, and in any case your procedure was diagnostic, not preventative), but it was "covered" by your health insurance in that you paid your regular deductible and copay, rather than the insurance company saying "your plan does not cover this procedure (at all)" and then the hospital billing you the full cost of the procedure, which would be tens of thousands of dollars.
> i) The Affordable Care Act specifies that all Marketplace health plans must cover colorectal cancer screening for adults 45 to 75 years at zero cost [i]. That means no copay and no coinsurance, even if you haven't met your deductible. You pay $0.
At least with my ACA insurance plan, you have to appeal it first because they pretend like it's actually diagnostic even though it was billed as screening.
It's fraud prevention! You see, people love to shit in a bucket multiple times a year to have their shit tested all to defraud insurance companies.
> does anyone else have their entire day sidelined by a 10-minute call? is that common?
It's extremely common for me.
It really comes down to the point made in the article. If you have five or six calls already, the marginal cost of one more call is very low. If you have no calls, the marginal cost of one more call is very high.
>It's much more difficult to detect or correct misunderstandings over text.
I really couldn't disagree more strongly. I think it's much easier to correct misunderstandings over text. In a spoken discussion, there is a high degree of temporal entropy - the longer it's been since you made a point, the worse my recollection of your exact point may be. Detail and nuance is lost. But if you write your point down, I can refer to it at any point without any real loss of information.
In my experience, it's relatively common for two people to leave a spoken discussion thinking they have a strong, shared understanding, and only much later do they realize that's not the case.
yeah i agree. i’ve had so many instances where i’ve got off a call and then a week later the person
* has a fundamentally different understanding of the facts discussed [0]
* has forgotten the important facts even when they were highlighted as important
* has completely forgotten most of the conversation, sometimes even forgetting we had a conversation
* has just made some shit up in their head that was never even talked about
… and once again i’d have to go over the whole thing again for an hour, so we’re back where we started a week later. this is normal “fuzzy human brain stuff”. people forget details over the course of a week, especially new details.
but yeah; if it’s not written down it doesn’t exist is my mantra now.
[0]: note to say this was not because they went and spoke to someone else and got more detail, other opinions etc. the detail would just get warped in their brain over the course of a week.
> You can just spin up a raw VPS on EC2 or Lightsail, give it a public IP, and call it a day
You could do this, but for the life of me I can't imagine why you do this over using a platform like DO, vultr, hetzner or any one of a hundred similar services that will give you a better developer experience for this kind of workflow, often at a fraction of the price
> US HUD says it's ~16% of homeless people, other sources give different numbers, but it's certainly not a majority
"Homeless people" is a broad category that includes people temporarily living in vehicles, bouncing between family members, or sleeping on a friend's couch. It also includes people who are about to lose their home, young people living alone.
But when everyday people use the term, they usually mean, specifically, visible homeless people - i.e. people who are homeless long-term, sleeping rough on the streets or in parks, etc.
The two groups are pretty different to each other. I would be very surprised if the rate of drug addiction in the second group was the same as the rate of drug addiction in the first group
I personally have close to a dozen friends who have spent between 2 and 6 weeks of their life (but not longer) living out of their car in a state of actual temporary homelessness. Almost always due to financial issues.
Temporarily living in vehicles is absolutely a thing.
> I would be very surprised if the rate of drug addiction in the second group was the same as the rate of drug addiction in the first group
But that's a far far weaker claim than the one above.
If the rate is 90% or higher in the second group, then we get close to the claim being true. (Though still a subset rather than the circles being the same; lots of people with drug problems have homes.)
Increasingly, my reaction to AI-generated content of basically all types is simply a deep, resonant sadness.
The growth of AI feels a little like losing a limb - there is an initial shock of sadness, an initial dose of loss, an initial sense of what has been taken away.
But then for months and years afterwards, the daily occurrence of some other little humdrum experience, and only at the moment of the encounter does one think, "Ah yes, this too is forever changed."
Like sounding the depths of a dark well, where every day you lower the rope a little further, but every day there is nothing to feel but a pointless swinging in a vast, unquantifiable emptiness.
To me it had, in a way, the opposite effect - I started appreciating non-AI content more.
Good art has something that is difficult to reproduce if one isn't already an artist who is just using AI as a medium - it's intentionality.
Take for example Floor796[0]. Every little detail counts and while you could use AI to generate single characters or even the whole thing, you'd inevitably find details which have no reason to be there. You could then remove them manually or modify your prompt or input image so that those you know about won't appear, but AI being AI will keep sneaking in new ones.
The longer your prompt, the more intentional everything becomes, effectively making it the art piece.
A lot of people regard technical measures as the signal of quality. The most realistic painting, the most expensive purse, the most technical flip on a skateboard, the most well drawn AI art.
It’s a cheap way to judge quality because you don’t have to understand what makes something good.
But then some people recognize that technical excellence is not the most important thing, and extend that to assuming that technique does not matter at all. And so we get this constant drip feed of absolutely terrible conceptual art (with an AI-generated artist statement, can't leave that out!) in every single local art scene.
AI might actually help in this regard. Where you may have someone who has good taste, and can create a unique style, but lacks the skill to execute on the technique. Kind of like a song writer that can't play an instrument, but can hum a tune to the band, and articulate subtle changes they want.
Of course, current AI is not even close to that yet, but decoupling creativity from technical ability could actually be a good thing in the long run. Though to be honest, I am generally pessimistic on it.
Yeah, but you have to realize we are on the losing side of this war. The armies of bullshit now have an incredible advantage that actual art can never have. At least in the past, there was some equilibrium. Bullshit was cheaper to make than art (or any other quality product), but now it has become infinitely cheaper to produce, and much more expensive for us to separate from the bullshit.
Think about this for a moment - it takes a company of 8 people to make 3000 podcast episodes a week. It would take far more than 8 people to listen to that many podcasts. How can we possibly hope to separate the wheat from the chaff? What happens when it's 30,000 episodes per week? 300,000. What possible hope does art and craft have against an army that is effectively infinite.
We can hope that the cream will rise to the top, but I am not optimistic. I genuinely believe we are watching the end of art and human creativity as it is absolutely drowned is mass slop.
>How can we possibly hope to separate the wheat from the chaff?
Categorize, curate, and share. The war is only for your attention. I have favorite creators now, and they would cease to be favorite if they suddenly started sloppin' it up. The best of them recommended cool things made by other people, who in turn recommended more things, and so on.
If instead you peddle bullshit, it won't take long to be identified as a bullshit vendor, even if you have 1000x the bullshit of the next leading brand.
Not everyone will get the message especially if you mainly consume algorithmic feeds - we all seem to have that relative who thinks you would enjoy being sent an AI Jesus image every other week.
Already the way I find out about new podcasts is from recommendations from people I know, positive reviews, or from them being associated with a podcast I listen to. For now all of those have meant I haven't been exposed to any AI ones.
It feels like I will forever mourn the totally self-inflicted loss of the Internet. I feel like I will never get over it, so much so that I wish I had never experienced its (brief) moment of brilliance. I feel sorry for my younger self for thinking it was here to stay.
It was a very special time when the Internet was full of people's open, personal gardens. I feel fortunate for having experienced that because it showed me what's out there if I look, and I want to cultivate the pleasure of finding such things and sharing them with people I care about.
The saddest part to me was realizing that pretty much no one gives a shit.
I knew that they were plenty of careless people with no taste for truth or quality in the world, but I didn’t realize there were so many of them.
Especially so amongst my friends and family members and coworkers. Here’s someone who’s now sending AI generated messages for daily communication. Here’s someone who’s now using AI generated slop art to promote their work. Here’s someone who turns to ChatGPT for any random question they have. No regard for beauty or truth or personal expression or the quality of expert work, only hooked to the “get this done” machine.
That will randomly and unpredictably try to take over tasks from your other limbs, hijacking your somatosensory system so you can't tell when it's doing so without actively looking at what you're doing.
It seems like Black Mirror's "Joan is Awful" is here, but instead of a quantum computer generating personalized content, we just have an endless parade of meaningless slop.
This is, increasingly, the front page of HN. Direct slop is uncommon, but not rare. I skip any headline that mentions AI. But sometimes you get baited, you start reading, and it's about AI anyway. A few days ago there was an article about someone hacking some device, and it was just the author vibe-hacking with AI.
It is not interesting.
I have intense AI fatigue. Make a containment board for AI sloppers. It's so much worse than all the previous fads combined, like blockchains and Rust rewrites. I'm not even anti-AI, but the exposure to it is just overwhelming and unrelenting.
I think I've "flagged" more links this year than my last 13 years on this site combined. I'm sure it's unproductive and doesn't really do anything, but it makes me feel a touch better. I'm so over the slop I think I'm actually visiting HN markedly less because of it.
On the plus side, there has been a (predictable) uptick in slop-flagging browser extensions over the last few months. Once a good locally-hosted version exists, I think it'll take its rightful place alongside ad blockers for tech-minded folks.
I think at this point the containment board is the entire Internet. I have no idea how, but we all need to "Atlas Shrugged" this shit and start over somewhere else with something else.
Imagine your favorite third place[1], a library, park, bar, etc. The place you regularly go to get connection to people without having to jump through all of the hoops to create and organize an actual event. It's a way to satisfy your innate need for conviviality without requiring much effort or willpower, which are always in finite supply.
You've been going to this place for years. You're a regular. You've made friends with other regulars. It feels good to be a familiar face and to see those familiar faces. A kind of warm sense of safety that we have evolved to experience since we first sat around a fire in prehistoric days. That sense of "Ah, good, I'm here nestled among my tribe."
Now imagine how it feels to walk into that room and discover that half the seats are occupied by mannequins. Each mannequin has a loudspeaker attached to it constantly playing random word salad.
Some of the regulars are still there, maybe. It's hard to see them through all the plastic limbs or hear them through the cacophony of meaningless noise.
How does being in that space make you feel? Now compare it to how you felt before the dead-eyed inanimate bodies showed up. That's what we've all lost.
I’m so intensely sick of this attitude. We are losing things with technology. Important things. Human things.
Looking under a microscope at one specific instance and saying “eh it’s not that bad, you’re overreacting” is disingenuous or at least putting your head in the sand.
Imagine a library. You go in, grab a book, and start reading.
Imagine the same library, but it's the Unseen University's Library - you go in, grab one of any book ever written, and start reading. You've gained something!
You want human things? Put down the technology and go and connect with some humans.
But yes, the original poster with their allusions to lost limbs and "pointless swinging in a vast, unquantifiable emptiness.." is overreacting, depressed or both.
The slop will continue until it is no longer profit-making for someone.
The fact that profit motives exist and motivate people isn't an "appeal to capitalism", it's just a statement of reality. The best way to stop slop is to put it out of business. People don't make slop for social prestige.
even if it is, that is their feelings. your outright dismissal of them is far more sad in my opinion than their feelings. lack of empathy is a truly sad state.
I can't help but wonder about the relationship between fathers (and, in fact, all parents) spending more time with their children, and people choosing to have fewer children, and later.
I think it's unquestionably true that fathers spending more time with their children is, on the whole, much better for those children.
But it's also true that it's a huge problem for society that people are having fewer children. And I think you can make a reasonable argument that increasing expectations around the quality of parenting are party of that trend.
I think it is. It's discouraged and unspoken, but a lot of men don't like spending time with children. I mean for weeks or months, sure, but when you have a kid it drags on for years 24/7 and nothing but having your own child will really reveal to you how that turns out for you.
As it turns out, I don't enjoy extended time with children. My bad, but I power through it for the sake of the child. In older times that would be no problem, my wife would deal with that. Instead I stopped at 1 when I realized I am not the kind of person who enjoys being equally involved with children.
In the same way you power through taking care of your kids, not because you enjoy it but because you prioritize their well-being, how likely is it that moms are generally doing the same? It seems to me like men have been historically avoiding this child-rearing responsibility, moreso than women enjoying doing so.
I can tell you that my wife and I are both exhausted of taking care of them 24/7. It is not something we do for funsies.
I think it's natural that someone, whether you believe in biological differences or not, will relatively prefer child-rearing to some other tasks that the family needs to do. Modern society has brainwashed females in particular into believing that equal-childcare should be a thing and they're being robbed if one is "avoiding it" (even your rhetoric exhibits this brainwashing).
It doesn't have to be the wife per-se. When I was building our house, I did most of the carpentry. My wife hated it and did very little of that. My wife hates driving the tractor. My wife hates driving any vehicle. My wife hates doing the plumbing and electric. My wife hates taking care of the pets, so I take care of them. My wife doesn't like practicing self-defense and security for the house, and there are lots of dangerous animals and criminals here, so I handle that. I do not ask my wife to do any of those things except at worst a few small % of the time compared to when I do them. This does not bother me at all because different people prefer different things.
Modern society has brainwashed people to think they need to share child-care and ideally equally. I think this is highly misinformed utopian vision. Voluntary preference based division of labor is smart and helps us all enjoy our lives more. Very rarely do couples have absolute equal relative preference for all the tasks, even if they dislike all of the tasks.
It seems obvious that if you brainwash people to think labor sharing by exchanging tasks is "avoidance" that you increase the chance one of the two parties will just veto any additional children. But if you bring this up then it's straight to whataboutism but women also don't enjoy it which totally misses the mark about relative preference that results in imbalanced childcare, which can be evaluated even when both people dislike a task. Unless you totally reject sexual dimorphism, you should be at least open to the possibility as well that females on average might have higher relative preference for child-rearing than other things, as long as feminists aren't shaming them left and right with artificial impositions that somehow they're being robbed if a man is "avoiding" it by exchanging labor to do something else.
Treating childcare as a chore to be assigned to whichever parent dislikes it the least is not in the best interest of the children. They benefit from having two engaged parents.
It's truly glorious that what's in the "best interest of the children" is whatever matches the stranger outsider's philosophical goals. Of course who could argue with "engagement." That sounds great! The devil of that is in the details, and not necessarily mean anything approaching equal time spent child-rearing. "Interest of the children" spoken by some outsider to try and force others to act towards their philosophy, might be responsible for more atrocities and misdeeds than anything else in history.
Personally I don't take your omniscient approach. I believe the parents are nearly always better position to determine the interests of their children than some random dude on HN, than the outsider trying to impose their goal of their particular vision of "engagement."
I am merely explaining why I take care of my kids. Your reaction suggests that you feel attacked by that, when it is not my intention at all. Where do you think that reaction may be coming from?
You're not saying what your position clearly - instead you're "just asking questions", and it's rubbing some people up the wrong way (including me, sorry). It looks like you're not apologising for that because "it wasn't your intention".
If you're sincerely trying to engage in good faith, I feel you should be apologising for your role in sending it in the wrong direction unintentionally.
To be clear, I'm not taking a position in the debate here, just commenting that the way your engaging is legitimately a bit annoying if you're not aware. The other person getting really angry isn't the best look either, but I'm sure they already know that.
I see, this is all one big misunderstanding and you were only talking about taking care of your kids, not referring to how anyone else might take care of their children. And now I need personal introspection for my psychological weaknesses. You are fucking good at this. I might suggest a career in family therapy or family law, because although this gas lighting won't work on me, they use the same kind of duplicitous rhetoric and you'd fit right in and get it to work on plenty of people.
I think a lot of it is the type of things you do while spending time with kids.
I watch my friends raise young children, and to be blunt it largely looks miserable to me. You effectively are babysitting children activities 24x7. Basically running a tiny daycare.
The families and adults seem to simply exist as caretakers for their child's lives.
I ascribe to "the kid is just now part of your general life" for 90% of your adult activities. Could be working in the shop, outdoor chores, cleaning the house, fixing the car, shopping, whatever. The point is the kid primarily exists in your life and does whatever it is you are doing, not the other way around.
Yeah, some things are impossible to do with a kid of course. But not nearly as many as currently believed for most children. If properly socialized, kids can exist non-disruptively in plenty of situations. And the danger to them in a lot of spots is wildly exaggerated. I brought my 5 year old into warehouses and lumberyards with a bit of instruction and teaching them to pay attention. They pretty quickly adapt.
If I have another kid I'd plan on not modifying my life a whole lot. The kid will simply come with to most things and liberal use of babysitting and such will happen. I have friends who are terrified to even leave their toddlers with babysitters these days for a few hours - it's absurd.
Kids imo do best in a balanced life where the get to learn by watching and doing. Not catering to their every whim and desire and shielding them from every possible danger.
There are certainly some age ranges (infant through ~3 or 4 years old or so) that are much more difficult, but after that parents seem to prefer life on hard mode these days for some reason. Paranoia and peer pressure from my standpoint drives most of it.
My older (25 now!) son would have been a miserable experience for me if every single day was a "rainy weekend" style thing where we're stuck inside playing children's games and the like with near constant 24x7 attention and direct interaction at his level. I'd have gone insane. Having him "around" most of the time while I did things with an hour or two of direct "kid time" engagement was totally sustainable, and he seems to have gotten a lot of enrichment from most of it. Note that wasn't staring at screens though - it was physically and actively doing stuff. And part of learning as a parent and a child of a parent is the parent making mistakes. Shit happens, just correct for it moving forward. So long as no major injuries occur life moves on and typically everyone is better off for it.
I can tell you that as you have more children the time you can spend and need to spend drops - because there’s more of them, but they also play with each other.
Three are running around yelling and I can’t even join in, as they want me to be “the base” apparently.
I can't believe I'm asking this, because it isn't even something I would remotely consider (and it is too late anyway), but, is three actually easier than two children in some ways?
I have two children and I find parenting to be utterly draining. They are 4 and 6. They are *constantly* fighting. They play together a bit, but when they do, after 5-10 minutes it leads to real fight where we need to intervene. And they still demand an enormous amount of attention.
It turns out I am one of those fathers with a personality that doesn't deal well with constant sensory overload. I was medicated for ADHD myself as a child and one of my children is AuADHD. It isn't his fault and we're trying to find ways to help him (and everyone else), but his meltdowns make life so, so hard for the whole family. He wants to control and dominate every situation, whether it is his brother or his parents.
I was wondering if the dynamics of three would have made it easier because he couldn't dominate his brother so eaily, or if that would just mean he became the isolated child.
Yes... Father of four here. I can't imagine having one . It was way more work.
Taking my one kid to things was much harder because they'd have to be played with.
My four kids just play with each other. Yes I play with them too, but most of the time they run off on their own to play and want the adults to go away.
It's magical. Ironically I have more free time as a dad of four. Still the same number of diapers to change but the older ones do stuff themselves.
The biggest issue is logistics of getting four kids the various places they need to go.
Two of my three kids are always getting along! Actually the fighting among my two girls has fallen off pretty dramatically as they have both matured. They are 12 and 14 now. They have learned to compromise on activities instead of getting into fights over it. They still snipe at each other occasionally, but it seems to be taken more in stride than it used to.
It ... can? It really depends on the children, the dynamics, and other factors (so I'm not saying "have another kid and everything is fixed").
It does increase the network, so that if one kid doesn't want to play, the other might. Sometimes all the kids are playing together, sometimes one is off doing his own thing, sometimes there's still a meltdown.
Three might be the nadir as they outnumber you but each kid only has two other kids. But when older you likely can deal with one kid at a time and the other two play.
If it makes you feel better 4 to 6 is about the worst for "normal" kids, too, as they know that the outside world is something they have influence over but can't always control the way they want to.
the question is, where does that feeling come from? from your own time growing up, based on how your own father interacted with you? from your friends/peers? others?
i can relate. when my kids were young i didn't know what to do with them. but it's not that i didn't like spending time with them. before we had kids, working part-time so i could spend a lot of time at home was my dream. it was what i wanted. when the dream became real my inability to initiate play with the children was unexpected.
i figure it was because i had no rolemodels from my time growing up, no childhood experience that i could replicate because i grew up with a single dad who wasn't as close to me as i wanted to. every interaction was initiated by my children. it got easier as they got older because our interests became more compatible. (we could play games together that i also enjoyed, etc)
all the other stuff, taking care of them, feeding, putting them to sleep, etc. was easy because it's clear what needs to be done. and it wasn't/isn't exhausting either. i relish every interaction and moments of success where we achieve something together.
If your limit for being slightly out of your comfort zone is a year, why did you have a child? You don't have to be a parent to know that you are going to be challenged when a baby arrives.
If fathers spending more time with their children is better for the children but worse for ~~society~~the economy, is that really even a question worth considering?
In the 1960s when single-parent households were a thing, it was not unusual for households to have little to no indoor plumbing or regular electricity.
Nowadays such a lifestyle will get social workers on your ass, unless you can get some Mennonite or Amish preacher or something to vouch for you. After a long enough period of failing to meet some arbitrary modern "quality of life" that can only be afforded by going along with the mainstreams economic system and expectations, the legal system will likely get involved in some capacity.
Economy is a bit of a one way valve. If you don't flow with it they'll rip away your children and then you'll be dumped to the curb along with the homeless or other inmates at the jail.
Ugh... In the 90s, people were screaming and panicking about the future of over-population. Dystopian scenes of dense and dirty tiny living-quarters stacked on top of each other.
Now everyone's screaming about a declining population.
We should embrace and prepare for degrowth for a better chance at a wonderful future, not shout at the sky hoping people will make more babies for the economy.
And guess what, if we prepare for degrowth, where a generation or two or three of the entire planet never goes hungry, never goes to war, and has the freedom of movement, creativity, innovation, interaction... Those people will want to have many many babies, and we can once again start worrying about overpopulation.
Those outcomes seem an extraordinarily optimistic take of what population decline would lead to. I don't think it'll be all doom either, but the world was not an ideal place when the population was previously billions fewer either.
Especially when pretty much all modern political and economic systems are fundamentally incompatible with population decline, and leadership fights changes tooth and nail.
This phrase is used so often, but I don't know how meaningful it is supposed to be
A family might make $300,000 a year and be living "paycheck-to-paycheck" while also maxing out 401k contributions, paying a mortgage on a $2 million home, and paying $80,000 a year in private school tuition.
Are we supposed to think that such a family is in worse financial shape than a family making $40,000 a year but with minimal expenses and a few months of living costs in a savings account?
It's somewhat of a mindset question and somewhat of a wealth question.
Mr $300k may have zero months in an emergency account, but be stable in his job as a doctor and not worry about finding work - and may actually "feel poor" because he barely has any "fun money" to waste and feels he can't buy coffee in the morning.
Mr $40k a year may have 6 months of expenses in the bank, saving half his income to FIRE, and know that anytime he wants to he can buy that coffee - and sometimes he does.
Net worth likely says Mr $300k is worth more than Mr $40k - but that may not be true forever, and Mr $40k may be "retired" at 50 while Mr $300k is perpetually working until death.
Who is rich, who has wealth, and who is happy? There are no clear answers.
You're missing the third question which is of definitions. There's an other person Mr $65k who after all their necessary expenses has $1k left over each paycheck that they spend on dinners out, concert tickets, vacations, etc so that at the end of the month they are left with no additional savings. Are they living paycheck to paycheck?
I mean, should we live in a world where the only way to create savings is by denying yourself any fun? You've picked a number, $1k, because it sounds good to support your argument, but maybe after paying for the essentials, a family has $200 left per month. Should we expect that family to never go to the movie theater, never go out to a restaurant, never splurge on a nice piece of clothing or jewelry, never do anything fun at all? Do we think it's ok for people to have to live like that?
So sure, maybe if they spend that $200 on fun stuff, it's not "living paycheck to paycheck". But maybe that's just a bad metric, or just too poorly-defined to be a reasonable way to measure anything.
Correct. We are meant to be wage slaves. That is why there is such a malaise these days. Everyone has sort of realized that we are meant to wage slave until we are dead, and our "productive" years are spent providing retirement income to the older generations.
Idk if people thought differently about this in the past, or just didn't care, or just weren't able to see the myriad ways that people get to live (social media) when they are not wage slaves. But something is wrong.
Happiness for him was somewhere between having zero dollars and being $33 million in debt. His influencer wife seems to have no humility, has moved to Miami where she can continue her partying lifestyle and going to yoga classes.
Its' both maddening and saddening. To what point does the ostentatious display of wealth serve if it leads to suicide? A few years of looking rich at the cost of the rest of life? We have no choice but to assume he was willing to make that trade-off. So it's angering to think a person would believe that.
On the other hand, suicide is the ultimatum when a man thinks his pleas are unanswered. Being surrounded by old-money socialites, I can imagine the feeling of having to leave the club being a fate worse than death. But how can an average guy have any sympathy for that, much less this guy's own feelings of himself.
reply