Agreed. And if more high income professionals pursued this path, it would tip the balance of power in the workforce away from employers. That's a win for all except those at the top.
This article has a narrow definition of passive income, limiting it to these low-barrier-to-entry schemes. Other parts of the FIRE world have emphasized being a landlord or flipping houses, for example.
I personally made it happen by working a FAANG SWE job for 13 years, not getting sidetracked by the startup cult, saving and investing 70% of my after tax income, etc. And no I didn't get into crypto, but I still managed to make it with conventional investments.
In fact, I chose to pursue a career in the tech industry in order to pursue financial independence in the first place. Because I knew back then (circa 2005) all the tech Kool aid was BS. That "don't be evil" was just a facade. And time has proven me right and my haters wrong, those who thought it was unethical for me to place wealth building ahead of career building.
It's been four years since I've been out of a job. Now I'm creating more passion oriented content. I'm never bored.
> those who thought it was unethical for me to place wealth building ahead of career building.
that might well be the first time I've seen "career" and "ethical" conflated in that way. I've definitely seen the people who think you're a fool and possibly a sucker if you chase short term wealth over career stability, and there's definitely a veneer of unethicalness clinging to the notion of get-rich-quick, but I cannot understand how "establish yourself in a career" is an ethical concern.
Keep in mind that for me it was before the FAANG companies became the new evil tech overlords, and to some extent even before the Great Financial Crisis of 2008. Back then it was much easier for naive young college students or new grads to buy into that narrative of using our talents to make the world a better place through professional careers.
This is the way. There is huge survivorship bias when it comes to start-ups, even AI start-ups. When it comes to wealth creation, it's hard to beat a 20-30% CAGR with big tech stocks since 2010 or so, which was doable.
Shouldn't this be great news that the government is banned from using Anthropic?
I don't know why suddenly the narrative here turns to spinning this as "Trump is evil" when this is actually keeping the AI company out of the government's reach.
to those unaware: 11 is the laughing taunt in aoe2 and is used in the community like lol. the poster above was describing how you hunt a boar in aoe2 which is a vital source of food in early game. it is risky to use your towncenter to weaken a boar because if you kill it with the towncenter you can not harvest the food
Thanks, I think that's a style/level of in-joke that needed an explanation for the wider audience. Particularly since the first arrow-part sounds almost plausible. (And "11" on its own is unlikely to give many useful hits.)
There is no "should" except what the most influential majority believes is correct. Language naturally evolves all the time and that is a good and beautiful thing.
You may have a preference or think this historical norm is interesting, but please stop with the "should" talk, it is irritating, condescending, and incorrect.
This particular norm is especially "wrong" (heh) because the overwhelming social majority has already left it behind. Clinging to it just because some academic wrote a book claiming that was correct or because 100 years ago that phrasing was common is especially misguided since for most modern English speakers it isn't just a thing they forget sometimes, but actually sounds wrong and weird to them. By any sane understanding of language that makes them far more correct than you.
For the people who are downvoting this, I believe the HN title was edited, and was originally something like "Microsoft layoffs 1000 people". (It's always a bit dangerous to comment on the submission title without saying what the title was at the time of the posting!)
