If you want to make a difference, quit trying to cash out as a 25 year old millionaire.
Get a PhD and do research. That's the real risk in life, that you might work your ass off for little pay, spend 30 years chasing a dream, and fail in the end.
But the people who succeed change the world.
Interestingly, most Nobel Prize winners donate a large percentage of their prize money to charity or research. They weren't interested in early retirement in the first place.
Really? I think you shouldn't come up in here telling people that cashing out at 25 doesn't make a 'real' difference. There are people who prefer life experience, over work and research experience.
There are people who rather invest in other people taking that risk, than taking the risk themselves. Everybody's different.
The millionaires are the ones paying for your research work. So when someone like you spends 30 years chasing their dreams after acquiring a PhD and fail-- they have more-or-less acquired a different way of thinking about things. Right? They gain a different self, a different sense of awareness. They gain a specialization of some niche topic. I get it. Researchers change the world theoretically.
The thing is doing research and influencing others to think differently is the same thing as influencing people with products or services. They all have the same goal, to change the way people think about a topic or way of doing things. It isn't tied down to one route.
Because interestingly, MOST millionaire's become philanthropists. And they are not interested in retiring either.
And like how the top comment said, it's not one big disruption that changes things, it's the succession of little bits of implementations or modrnizations of products, services, and ideals. All in harmony. One branch isn't worth worshiping more than the other branch.
I know you were targeting the people who retire and enjoy life, without investing or donating back but there's a world out there to see and not everybody gets bored with it at the same rate as you do.
Edit: Some people like to manage and become overseers, they get the thrill of life from that, you can't tell them they're doing it wrong, that they should quit and enjoy life. That will bring anarchy and chaos. The same thing with a whole bunch of people sitting in a laboratory. I remember reading a book that went over this topic, about people being programmed to work in the laboratory. There were different levels, and Level B's worked in the lab. The book isn't coming back to me..It was where one level were giving audios while they sleep to acknowledge their inferiority. What a book, if I find out what it was I have to re-read it.
Is this the only way to make a big difference? I would love to see something like a guide to making a difference in the world. What are the major archetypes of such people?
For instance, what of the managers who brought together the teams of PhD's to do the work – are they not just as important as the Nobel winners? And how does one become such a manager?
> I think the idea is that instead of using the current journal system...professors will post straight to Academia and bypass publishers altogether
This might work in fields where there is more collaboration than competition, such as most of physics, but it won't work in the biomedical sciences. People want and need to publish in high impact, well-established journals. That's just the reality for now.
I wouldn't be a failure, but I certainly wouldn't be claiming (as the original submission title did, now thankfully fixed by the mods) that I was a better yacht salesman than you if I had never even sold a yacht.
I always thought that one of the hardest thing to sell must be fighter airplanes. A (normal) country only buys new ones maybe once every 25-30 years. It is a long selling process!
It's important to point out that he wasn't arrested merely because he posted a message on Facebook. That was just a tip that lead to concrete evidence of the crime, namely his damaged vehicle. Cops follow leads all the time, and Facebook is a part of the ecosystem now.
> Those are people who really meant to go to plus.google.com
I actually did that at least a couple of times last month by mistake, the G+ link is very close to the Inbox/Home link in GMail's web app. I cursed and hit the back button in a matter of seconds each and every time.
I went to G+ last week because Google requires it for the "Author" feature in search engine results (pure vanity, my blog posts will never show up in SERP). I went to G+ for thirty seconds this week to read the post about the guy who "cracked" a really lame DRM scheme. I don't consider myself an active G+ user at all, and yet I'm sure those "actions" (adding a URL to my profile and viewing a post) contributed to the 135 million, and I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one. Engagement across G+ per unique monthly visitor is almost certainly an order of magnitude smaller (by time on site, for example) than Facebook's.
Which means... unique user page views with 0 engagement metrics! Yay~
MAU and DAU are meaningless statistics. It's pure eye-views, that's all.
Show me some average aggregate visits per user per month, and I'll believe there's actually something happening (ie. the average number of times each unique user visited the site in a single month. Hint: for Facebook, this number is probably ~20-30).
No, because those phrases do not appear to be linked to who voted or how they voted in any statistical meaning way. All you can derive from this is that on election day people are talking about the election in high volume. Hardly a revolutionary insight.
Get a PhD and do research. That's the real risk in life, that you might work your ass off for little pay, spend 30 years chasing a dream, and fail in the end.
But the people who succeed change the world.
Interestingly, most Nobel Prize winners donate a large percentage of their prize money to charity or research. They weren't interested in early retirement in the first place.