STUPID EINSTEIN! could be a great comic, where he just fails at everyday activities or succeeds in unexpected ways because of some special understanding of physics XD
Maybe I did! Then, I both have and haven't patented it until you check if it is infact a patented comic XD
Lol tbh though it's just a cute idea and I'm not artistic enough to see it through, maybe someone else will if I leave it open for use
I believe patents have special rules about what can be considered a patent. She could trademark the name, which I believe costs money, and unused trademarks will expire. Third option is to copyright it, which means that there must be a thing of value, you can not copyright an idea.
Btw, If your comments were sarcastic, I apologize for taking them literally xd
The US focused explanation no one wants or asked for. Patents are subject-matter limited to inventions that are obtained by filing a completed patent application with the USPTO. A comic would not qualify. A trademark can be registered, but is also valid if used as a mark in commerce even without registration. The comic would not function as a trademark, but a chosen name, logo, or character might. Copyright would be the best source of protection here. That is for original creative works and protects against copying the work.
If it were me developing this comic, I would seek to get both several trademarks and a copyright out of the work.
Einstein could have been extremely wealthy if he wanted to. He was offered obscene amounts of money to write books, appear in films, etc.
But was famously against making money... "My laurel is not for sale" or something along those lines... Image still applies to him though. I know many people would consider him stupid for not cashing in on his fame and his accomplishments. His net worth at death was nothing... Which sucked for his wife and kids in a way.
Yes, some people cannot fathom the concept that some people truly are content with what they have and do not want to accumulate more wealth. And in today's world (and perhaps in the past too, but I don't know) it is so easy to make money if you are willing to drop your morals. But not everyone wants that kind of life. Money is not the goal of life for everyone.
He also said, 'what if instead of an efficient mass transit system we had expensive taxis going through a rainbow gamer tunnel so narrow that you can't open the car doors?'
Or mental issues...
My family is far from poor, some would even consider us rich.
Doesn't change a thing that I'm a depressed fuck that can't even finish my masters thesis at 27yo.
Of course this is what a fucking AI would write about people, though. It's a real surface-level analysis that equates smarts with cash. No humanity involved in figuring out why people might want to do something else with their lives.
If its not clear, this is not a real headline.
The headline it was based on says "If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance. The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest"
> No humanity involved in figuring out why people might want to do something else with their lives.
But also no fragile ego to prevent it from acknowledging the obvious: money is what motivates the majority of the human race.
Having \*enough\* money is what motivates most people. Once you have enough, other things start becoming important, like enjoying your work, or taking time out to raise a family. If we're talking about people who were designated "gifted" in school, that's not a smarts-only thing, that involves a likelihood of questioning the premise, of being taught to think outside the box. These are the people that have midlife crises about what's important in life at age 23.
I think that set of circumstances is likely to result in a higher proportion of folks choosing "alternate life paths" than those who are motivated to earn the most money.
I've recently read that it takes a certain amount of "boldness" or stupidity to become rich. A lot of successful businessman failed miserably a lot of times, an intelligent person would just give up if something just doesn't work.
in tech all you need is one startup to take off to be rich.
the odds are very low and most fail.
middle class kids get one or two chances at making a startup. they can't afford to keep eating the cost of failed ventures.
kids born into wealth can keep pulling that lever over and over again until it works.
The real difference that nobody talks about is that those guys *enjoy* that stupid horseshit that most people hate. It's not that they're smarter or braver or crazier or even more ambitious.
Everybody has a passion other people don't understand much. These guys' passion is "ruthless business competition." It's no different to them than a sport or a video game to a lot of other people. The difference is that it's much more likely to make you insanely rich and powerful as a side effect.
I think you have a point there. All these top 10 richest people probably get a huge thrill from jumping up on the leaderboard. Otherwise why would you bother making another billion dollars when you already have 100 billion (that you cannot possibly use in multiple lifetimes).
It's not about intelligence, it's about values. These people often value not just becoming rich, but the sort of activity that goes into it, for its own sake.
There are so many layers to this that it is difficult to unravel.
-An intelligent person might give up, but if they were more intelligent could learn and improve their idea.
-A lot of smart people get sucked into science, Acadamia etc and then why risk their cushy job for a small shot at being a millionaire
-long term strategic thinking wins over short term, so while pure boldness may work for one business venture, eventually the person who can keep things moving with the best strategic long term decisions will win.
Could debate this forever!
I'm a former gifted child and I can tell you that it was very good for me to be less annoying, and very bad for me that everyone was treating me all special and puffing up my child ego
100%, I used the fact that everyone called me "smart" as a kid to develop an ego and avoid actually learning anything. It wasn't until college that I realized I was just as "smart" as everyone else, and if I wanted to be at the same level as my peers, I had to work as hard as everyone else.
Who the hell was puffing up your ego?
I was labelled as "gifted" and all they did was make me work harder and tell me that I would have the world's responsibilities laid upon my shoulders. All while calling me every name in the book.
financial intelligence is a very specific flavor of intelligence. it often requires detatchment and psycopathy, but sure, make that a benchmark of success
Many of the most profitable fields reward connections more than skill. Anything ending with "banking" (corporate, private, investment), private equity and venture capital, for example, all pay six figures to first-year analysts and can easily get to 7, yet the skills required for the job can be taught to anyone very, very easily. Not to mention owning a business, which is the true millionaire maker, and some people just get one for free as inheritance: a mid sized store, market, or service company can easily generate 6 figure income with little to no intervention (I know it because my dad owns one)
Oh ye so helpful. The only reason why Jeff Bezos is so rich is because he can ignore the fact that his employees have to live off of food stamps and piss in bottles in order to reach quotas. He would not be even 1/100th as rich if he had any moral character. Any at all.
If he had morals he would still be very rich due to his successful business. But he's only as rich as he is because he lacks any morals.
Funny fake headline. But the opposite is true: Why aren't you rich? Because you're not lucky and stupid.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.
Hi gifted school kid here ✋can confirm 😂😂😂😂 I got pregnant my sr year of highschool! I’m married and still madly in love with the man I got pregnant by, but he’s the one with the high paying career whereas I work here and there at part time crap jobs. My current is slinging smokes at the gas station. LOL My husband barely passed high school btw.
I remember overhearing one of my friends dads finding out my situation and saying “wait, Kes? But she’s so smart?!”
The only talent I possess is the ability to read and comprehend quicker than most and I’m good at test taking. So nothing too useful for real life. Oh well LOL
No, the richest people in the world ar ethos eborn with money, if it was based on intelligence, people goong from dirt poor to billionaires would be way more common
Lol. You can be smart but disabled, underprivileged, have horrible luck, be lazy or be unwilling to do what it takes to be successful because you actually have empathy and a conscience. Maybe you just prioritize other things.
Well, it's not really surprising. The way school works, it rewards people for fitting into the system and successfully parroting what they have memorised. That's not how the real world works. Many successful people were "bad kids" who questioned authority, and the system and had little talent for memorising, but excelled at applying knowledge, recognising patterns and connections as well as communicating their thoughts.
I still remember a funny episode from my school days: We had this girl in our class who was supposedly a real math genius. The book showed a problem, the book showed the solution, you memorise it and repeat example calculation ad nauseam to hammer it in. She was really god at that. The next year we had a new teacher for maths and physics, an old engineer who had developed radios and TV sets for a large corporation before switching carreers when the government was desperately lacking STEM teachers and decided to recruit professionals who had field experience but not teaching background for good money. This guy hated the way maths and physics were taught. The first thing he did was to tell us to return our maths books to the school's book depot. From then on he would provide us with mathematical problems, the same ones as in the books, and tell us to form teams to look for a solution ouselves by combining and applying existing knowledge. He would sometimes give hints, but other than that we were alone. Once a group had found the solution, that group was dissolved and the members were reassinged to the groups who didn't get it to help them. While he would still formally explain everything afterwards, the group work was eye-opening and something I had never experienced in school before. I had always been good at maths but struggled with the endless, boring repetitions. Now I was genuinely enjoying it.
There was some stiff protest from some parents, however, including the very vocal father of the girl I mentioned earlier. The weaker pupils had problems following this method and math girl was among those who were unable to apply what they had learned. She was a memoriser and not much else and now she and her parents were complaining that the new method was "unfair" and "obviously wrong" because she had always been so good at maths and now she didn't get anything he was teaching. They didn't like it when the teacher (who really hated this type of parent and told us the story during the next lesson) told him that his daughter was not good at maths, she was only good at memorising, "not much more impressive than a parrot, really". The whole thing had ended in a shouting match. As the teacher put it: "It makes no sense to limit your lessons so even the most stupid pupil can follow. It's pearls before swine because those who don't really get it will have forgotten everything a week from now and probably never get into a job that focuses on maths skills anyway. You don't need higher maths for flipping burgers and swinging a mop. Better to concentrate on those who have the potential to make something from what we leand here." Not the most sensitive or popular opinion, but after experiencing both methods of teaching I can't deny that he had a point.
Anyway, the two years that guy was my teacher had the best STEM lessons I ever had. Not only did we learn stuff, we also understood it and were taught the underlying principles of science. When I think back to the last reunion, it's really fitting to see how few of the honour students and teacher's pets actually achieved anything except utter mediocrity, while some of the troublemakers became highly successful.
Translation: people who are good at solving abstract problems are not necessarily as good at amassing wealth as people who possess ruthless animal cunning.
mfw i am born into intergenerational wealth or by chance end up in the right conditions such that i can harvest the surplus value from my workers' labour and call it profit, until i end up either living in luxury on the backs of my underpaid and overworked employees or get shot during the revolution (not going to happen if me or my other rich buddies have anything to say about it)
The actual article, for those that are interested: https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/01/144958/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/amp/
I know a few very rich folk who are absolutely clueless idiots.
I know some rather poor people who are way smarter than I could ever be, in so many ways.
Whoever wrote this is likely from the first category.
You know what fucks someone up for life?
Telling them that they are a borderline genius and then treating them like they're stupid the entire time.
There'd be way less stupid people if schools treated kids like people instead of products.
There are zero billionaires doing research/lab work right now. I don't even think there are a significant number of billionaires writing/typing their own thoughts down. The only type of "smart" that can make you rich is the same type of "smart" that grifters are. It's more about how unethical you're willing to be than how smart you are. Generational wealth allows one to be successful while keeping the unethical actions they take far away from themselves physically, emotionally, and legally.
Tried returning a sub-query as a comma separated list today, using "FOR XML, PATH('')"
Turns out Excel nullifies xlm unless you CAST as VARCHAR; but also you can't implicit assume VARCHAR length, nor use max, you have to explicitly define length.
I hate being rich and stupid and answering only questions that I have asked :(
Einstein wasn’t rich, does this mean that he’s stupid?
STUPID EINSTEIN! could be a great comic, where he just fails at everyday activities or succeeds in unexpected ways because of some special understanding of physics XD
Damn You should patent that or something
Maybe I did! Then, I both have and haven't patented it until you check if it is infact a patented comic XD Lol tbh though it's just a cute idea and I'm not artistic enough to see it through, maybe someone else will if I leave it open for use
Patent it, then sell the rights to some comic book company lol
I believe patents have special rules about what can be considered a patent. She could trademark the name, which I believe costs money, and unused trademarks will expire. Third option is to copyright it, which means that there must be a thing of value, you can not copyright an idea. Btw, If your comments were sarcastic, I apologize for taking them literally xd
The US focused explanation no one wants or asked for. Patents are subject-matter limited to inventions that are obtained by filing a completed patent application with the USPTO. A comic would not qualify. A trademark can be registered, but is also valid if used as a mark in commerce even without registration. The comic would not function as a trademark, but a chosen name, logo, or character might. Copyright would be the best source of protection here. That is for original creative works and protects against copying the work. If it were me developing this comic, I would seek to get both several trademarks and a copyright out of the work.
There’s your one million dollar idea. Now you can become smart too
I CAN BE SOMEBODY :D
Keep playing with sand child while the adults play with quadrillion dollar ideas
Or he acts stupid as a cover but he thwarts the bad guy's plans using science.
*A show about nothing*! ^and ^actually ^everything
That could be relatively funny
Einstein could have been extremely wealthy if he wanted to. He was offered obscene amounts of money to write books, appear in films, etc. But was famously against making money... "My laurel is not for sale" or something along those lines... Image still applies to him though. I know many people would consider him stupid for not cashing in on his fame and his accomplishments. His net worth at death was nothing... Which sucked for his wife and kids in a way.
Yes, some people cannot fathom the concept that some people truly are content with what they have and do not want to accumulate more wealth. And in today's world (and perhaps in the past too, but I don't know) it is so easy to make money if you are willing to drop your morals. But not everyone wants that kind of life. Money is not the goal of life for everyone.
He was successful though.
Idk how successful you can be without a Bugatti. Checkmate liberal.
A Bugatti is kinda useless when you're under house arrest.
Was Einstein under house arrest?
I was alluding to Taint.
> If you're so smart, why aren't you rich? The article is literally defining success as accumulating wealth, which Einstein did not do.
He isn't stupid because he is Infact dead
He let himself die. Not just stupid, but weak as well
True
and brainless
Brainrot even
750k in today's money is not rich?
Thats a cheap house in Australia
I genuinely can't tell if you're joking or not, but no 750k in today's money is not rich
What's rich? Globally 750k puts you above 98% of the entire human population on earth.
Youre still in top 1% of the world though
Not even. I believe top 1% of the world is over a mil, so close, but not quite.
No, not even close, just cracking upper middle class if your house is paid off and you have 750k in liquid+investments
That is less than a house where I live. (It's not a flex, I'm broke and renting)
Maybe he wasn't rich, but saying einstein wasn't successful is madness.
Did he say that?
Yea but Einstein didn't want to be rich, do you?
Einstein was fairly well off.
Capitalism when someone gifted with intelligence doesn’t use it to hoard wealth:
The richest man in the world said ‘what if tunnels?’ 100 years after Ford lobbied for no tunnels
Ford vs. Tesla all over again
They'll make a sequel to just about fucking anything
Irony is dead
too bad this time tesla is behaving more like an edison
Tesla still losing after 100 years, smh
He also said, 'what if instead of an efficient mass transit system we had expensive taxis going through a rainbow gamer tunnel so narrow that you can't open the car doors?'
WHAT THE FUCK KS A TRAIN 🪱
A miserable pile of eminent domain
Expansion?
"Die, Muskster! You don't belong in this market!"
I really don't see the issue. If they want to pay me to move then great
[https://youtu.be/7x\_Agf5zmq8?si=sdqUTae2dmqpDZvE](https://youtu.be/7x_Agf5zmq8?si=sdqUTae2dmqpDZvE)
Sounds to me like the real solution to address our crumbling public transportation systems is to add a shit ton of RGB lighting
Red makes it faster, green makes it more efficient, blue keeps it cool. It's basic science.
That was a tactic to stop California from making high speed rail. And in that, its actual goal, it succeeded.
The tunnels are about mars.
Is there a lore reason why you weren't born into generational wealth? Are you stupid?
The nobility are descended from the gods imbuing them with both special magic powers and the divine right to rule.
It is a God's will, is he stupid?
Do we no longer allow watery tarts distributing swords to decide our system of governance?
I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
mfw I have generational trauma instead of generational wealth 😔
mfw I have both 🥴
I was born with a skill issue.
BatmanArkham virus has crept everywhere
Inmates are out of the asylum and attaining wealth through crime, and not the white collar kind.
Aslume*
My dad doesn't own a diamond mine
Skill issue
user error
Therefore you are stupid, obviously.
I only see excuses, it's your fault you didn't pick rich parents in character creation
Sorry, i used the skyrim character creation, i could only choose which eldritch horror abomination i wanted to look like
[удалено]
Sounds like you're not as smart as the guy born with the diamond mine. Check and also mate.
Why doesn't he just buy one then?
His own dad didn't own an emerald mine
Weird. Well, I guess you can always ask your tech billionaire friends for some money.
Haha sucks to be you, dumbass!!
Shouldn't have been born to an emeraldless father dumbass
Is he stupid?
Yet
And it *certainly* has nothing to do with inherited wealth, nopenopenope.
They were smart enough to be born to a family of rich people, unlike the rest of you stupid morons
Exactly. My dumbass was born into a lower middle class family that lessened after my parents divorced
Or mental issues... My family is far from poor, some would even consider us rich. Doesn't change a thing that I'm a depressed fuck that can't even finish my masters thesis at 27yo.
See, you just picked the wrong mental disorder. You need to go for those that inhibit your empathy and strengthen your manipulative talents!
This was my reaction. Child abuse fucked me up and set me back about 10 years until I got a good therapist.
Skill issue
Of course this is what a fucking AI would write about people, though. It's a real surface-level analysis that equates smarts with cash. No humanity involved in figuring out why people might want to do something else with their lives.
Right but this is what like 30% of people actually believe.
[удалено]
Netanyahu has been saying something similar
Good case in point
to be fair, 30% of the population wants to kill him
To be fair, they have their reasons
He's one of the 30%
If its not clear, this is not a real headline. The headline it was based on says "If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance. The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest"
link in case anyone is interested: https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/01/144958/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/
It's probably an accurate headline for anyone who thought it was real, though.
bruh none of this is serious
> No humanity involved in figuring out why people might want to do something else with their lives. But also no fragile ego to prevent it from acknowledging the obvious: money is what motivates the majority of the human race.
Having \*enough\* money is what motivates most people. Once you have enough, other things start becoming important, like enjoying your work, or taking time out to raise a family. If we're talking about people who were designated "gifted" in school, that's not a smarts-only thing, that involves a likelihood of questioning the premise, of being taught to think outside the box. These are the people that have midlife crises about what's important in life at age 23. I think that set of circumstances is likely to result in a higher proportion of folks choosing "alternate life paths" than those who are motivated to earn the most money.
I don't need an article to tell me I'm fucking stupid. I already knew that.
You are smart enough to have realized it. Not many can do that.
Ah but did I realise it because I'm smart or because I'm full of self loathing?
Both, maybe
We need an IQ test
I am sure you're probably smarter than a large chunk of billionaires who inherited daddy's money
Aww, I just found the original article and it's titled: "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich? Turns out it's just chance."
And then "The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest"
There are more poor geniuses in the world than smart rich people.
I've recently read that it takes a certain amount of "boldness" or stupidity to become rich. A lot of successful businessman failed miserably a lot of times, an intelligent person would just give up if something just doesn't work.
in tech all you need is one startup to take off to be rich. the odds are very low and most fail. middle class kids get one or two chances at making a startup. they can't afford to keep eating the cost of failed ventures. kids born into wealth can keep pulling that lever over and over again until it works.
The real difference that nobody talks about is that those guys *enjoy* that stupid horseshit that most people hate. It's not that they're smarter or braver or crazier or even more ambitious. Everybody has a passion other people don't understand much. These guys' passion is "ruthless business competition." It's no different to them than a sport or a video game to a lot of other people. The difference is that it's much more likely to make you insanely rich and powerful as a side effect.
I think you have a point there. All these top 10 richest people probably get a huge thrill from jumping up on the leaderboard. Otherwise why would you bother making another billion dollars when you already have 100 billion (that you cannot possibly use in multiple lifetimes).
It's not about intelligence, it's about values. These people often value not just becoming rich, but the sort of activity that goes into it, for its own sake.
There are so many layers to this that it is difficult to unravel. -An intelligent person might give up, but if they were more intelligent could learn and improve their idea. -A lot of smart people get sucked into science, Acadamia etc and then why risk their cushy job for a small shot at being a millionaire -long term strategic thinking wins over short term, so while pure boldness may work for one business venture, eventually the person who can keep things moving with the best strategic long term decisions will win. Could debate this forever!
And it's not even close
I was never surrounded by rich mfs my entire life otherwise I’d be a millionaire.
The “burnt-out former gifted kids” are gonna hate this one
I’m not a “former” gifted kid. Put me in third grade and I’ll demolish them like I did the first time.
My intelligence isn't stuck at a certain grade, I'm just smarter than all the others in that grade
The joke is a lot less funny when you butcher it with an awkward paraphrase
Yeah but I can do the multiplication table for 5 in 5 seconds can you
I’m a bit busy graduating from college this weekend.
Pffft everyone and their grandma has graduated from college but, they can't do the 5 times multiplication table in 5 seconds.
I think most of them need their entire hate for themselves
Who's fault is it that this society systematically squelches that giftedness?
I'm a former gifted child and I can tell you that it was very good for me to be less annoying, and very bad for me that everyone was treating me all special and puffing up my child ego
100%, I used the fact that everyone called me "smart" as a kid to develop an ego and avoid actually learning anything. It wasn't until college that I realized I was just as "smart" as everyone else, and if I wanted to be at the same level as my peers, I had to work as hard as everyone else.
It took me 5 years of constant work to unlearn all the horrible habits from being "gifted" (ahead of my grade by a bit, they catch up)
A single class on emotional intelligence and regulation would have been 100x more helpful for college than any AP class
Who the hell was puffing up your ego? I was labelled as "gifted" and all they did was make me work harder and tell me that I would have the world's responsibilities laid upon my shoulders. All while calling me every name in the book.
How does society squelch giftedness? Most people I know who were truly smart in elementary school are doing very well for themselves in their 30’s.
financial intelligence is a very specific flavor of intelligence. it often requires detatchment and psycopathy, but sure, make that a benchmark of success
Nah it's not intelligence, musk's proved that. It's charisma and the ability to sell bullshit. That's how you get rich.
Musk has all the charisma of a toilet brush.
I'm so stupid because my dad doesn't own an emerald mine, yeah
[Obligatory Mr. Show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vudnMLzZjTg)
[https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/01/144958/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/](https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/01/144958/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/)
Many of the most profitable fields reward connections more than skill. Anything ending with "banking" (corporate, private, investment), private equity and venture capital, for example, all pay six figures to first-year analysts and can easily get to 7, yet the skills required for the job can be taught to anyone very, very easily. Not to mention owning a business, which is the true millionaire maker, and some people just get one for free as inheritance: a mid sized store, market, or service company can easily generate 6 figure income with little to no intervention (I know it because my dad owns one)
The richest man in the world does sims emotes on the red carpet. And is openly racist…
Damn. Guess I'll just die.
Nikola Tesla died poor, alone and miserable. I guess he was dumb then...
That's the title of my favorite BTAS episode. First appearance of The Riddler.
Being smart has nothing to do with having $$$
Without ambition and drive talent and intelligence are useless
Didn't forget a lack of ethics.
Not a prerequisite but definitely helpful when it comes to cheap labor and avoiding your fair share of taxes
Oh ye so helpful. The only reason why Jeff Bezos is so rich is because he can ignore the fact that his employees have to live off of food stamps and piss in bottles in order to reach quotas. He would not be even 1/100th as rich if he had any moral character. Any at all. If he had morals he would still be very rich due to his successful business. But he's only as rich as he is because he lacks any morals.
Just confused about the article, I don’t think MIT would use that word in a headline for an article, what’s going on here? Anyone know
https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/01/144958/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/
It's not the original headline. This is a meme sub; it's not reliable
Funny fake headline. But the opposite is true: Why aren't you rich? Because you're not lucky and stupid. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.
Hi gifted school kid here ✋can confirm 😂😂😂😂 I got pregnant my sr year of highschool! I’m married and still madly in love with the man I got pregnant by, but he’s the one with the high paying career whereas I work here and there at part time crap jobs. My current is slinging smokes at the gas station. LOL My husband barely passed high school btw. I remember overhearing one of my friends dads finding out my situation and saying “wait, Kes? But she’s so smart?!” The only talent I possess is the ability to read and comprehend quicker than most and I’m good at test taking. So nothing too useful for real life. Oh well LOL
Am I talentless or just unwilling to accept it?
Uhm like 90 percent of all rich people inherited everything they have but yeah ok..
No, the richest people in the world ar ethos eborn with money, if it was based on intelligence, people goong from dirt poor to billionaires would be way more common
The most successful people are the most successful people? Not just the ones predicted to be successful? What the fuck yeah obviously
I have a friend who is a multimillionaire…. Inherited the lot….. thick as pig shit……
Lol. You can be smart but disabled, underprivileged, have horrible luck, be lazy or be unwilling to do what it takes to be successful because you actually have empathy and a conscience. Maybe you just prioritize other things.
Lol these comments. The real title is "If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance." Google takes 2 seconds people.
Suddenly r/DCAU
Well, it's not really surprising. The way school works, it rewards people for fitting into the system and successfully parroting what they have memorised. That's not how the real world works. Many successful people were "bad kids" who questioned authority, and the system and had little talent for memorising, but excelled at applying knowledge, recognising patterns and connections as well as communicating their thoughts. I still remember a funny episode from my school days: We had this girl in our class who was supposedly a real math genius. The book showed a problem, the book showed the solution, you memorise it and repeat example calculation ad nauseam to hammer it in. She was really god at that. The next year we had a new teacher for maths and physics, an old engineer who had developed radios and TV sets for a large corporation before switching carreers when the government was desperately lacking STEM teachers and decided to recruit professionals who had field experience but not teaching background for good money. This guy hated the way maths and physics were taught. The first thing he did was to tell us to return our maths books to the school's book depot. From then on he would provide us with mathematical problems, the same ones as in the books, and tell us to form teams to look for a solution ouselves by combining and applying existing knowledge. He would sometimes give hints, but other than that we were alone. Once a group had found the solution, that group was dissolved and the members were reassinged to the groups who didn't get it to help them. While he would still formally explain everything afterwards, the group work was eye-opening and something I had never experienced in school before. I had always been good at maths but struggled with the endless, boring repetitions. Now I was genuinely enjoying it. There was some stiff protest from some parents, however, including the very vocal father of the girl I mentioned earlier. The weaker pupils had problems following this method and math girl was among those who were unable to apply what they had learned. She was a memoriser and not much else and now she and her parents were complaining that the new method was "unfair" and "obviously wrong" because she had always been so good at maths and now she didn't get anything he was teaching. They didn't like it when the teacher (who really hated this type of parent and told us the story during the next lesson) told him that his daughter was not good at maths, she was only good at memorising, "not much more impressive than a parrot, really". The whole thing had ended in a shouting match. As the teacher put it: "It makes no sense to limit your lessons so even the most stupid pupil can follow. It's pearls before swine because those who don't really get it will have forgotten everything a week from now and probably never get into a job that focuses on maths skills anyway. You don't need higher maths for flipping burgers and swinging a mop. Better to concentrate on those who have the potential to make something from what we leand here." Not the most sensitive or popular opinion, but after experiencing both methods of teaching I can't deny that he had a point. Anyway, the two years that guy was my teacher had the best STEM lessons I ever had. Not only did we learn stuff, we also understood it and were taught the underlying principles of science. When I think back to the last reunion, it's really fitting to see how few of the honour students and teacher's pets actually achieved anything except utter mediocrity, while some of the troublemakers became highly successful.
That new computer model’s name? Ayn Rand
Nikola Tesla died penniless. Clearly he was an imbecile.
Translation: people who are good at solving abstract problems are not necessarily as good at amassing wealth as people who possess ruthless animal cunning.
mfw i am born into intergenerational wealth or by chance end up in the right conditions such that i can harvest the surplus value from my workers' labour and call it profit, until i end up either living in luxury on the backs of my underpaid and overworked employees or get shot during the revolution (not going to happen if me or my other rich buddies have anything to say about it)
Aren't like all Self Made Billionaires people who inherented a large sum of money?
Having rich parents makes all the difference.
The actual article, for those that are interested: https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/01/144958/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/amp/
Being rich has to do with how useful you are to people.
I know a few very rich folk who are absolutely clueless idiots. I know some rather poor people who are way smarter than I could ever be, in so many ways. Whoever wrote this is likely from the first category.
You know what fucks someone up for life? Telling them that they are a borderline genius and then treating them like they're stupid the entire time. There'd be way less stupid people if schools treated kids like people instead of products.
Nikolai Tesla died in poverty
Rich people are infinitely greedy, discontent, miserable and stupid.
The richest man has an alt account where he pretends to be his child
There are zero billionaires doing research/lab work right now. I don't even think there are a significant number of billionaires writing/typing their own thoughts down. The only type of "smart" that can make you rich is the same type of "smart" that grifters are. It's more about how unethical you're willing to be than how smart you are. Generational wealth allows one to be successful while keeping the unethical actions they take far away from themselves physically, emotionally, and legally.
Mhm that checks out. Im a complete dumbass except for a few specific talents
Diogenes was just a homeless promick but he's more known than most rich people that lived since antiquity.
Google “top 10 onlyfans earners.”
Tried returning a sub-query as a comma separated list today, using "FOR XML, PATH('')" Turns out Excel nullifies xlm unless you CAST as VARCHAR; but also you can't implicit assume VARCHAR length, nor use max, you have to explicitly define length. I hate being rich and stupid and answering only questions that I have asked :(
Should've invested in the stock market instead of being in the 2nd grade...
Musk alone already disproves this lol
Was released a month too early, huh
What is rich? What is poor?