I spent my whole career building passive income. Here's what I got wrong
speckx
21 points
15 comments
May 16, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 84.2ms across 8,303 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- The "Passive Income" trap ate a generation of entrepreneurs devonnull · 258 pts · April 16, 2026 · 64% similar
- Why Your "AI-First" Strategy Is Probably Wrong shenli3514 · 22 pts · April 13, 2026 · 47% similar
- Jobs was right. Gates was wrong lrsaturnino · 19 pts · April 28, 2026 · 46% similar
- Why Sora Failed: $15M/day inference cost vs. $2.1M lifetime revenue vinodpandey7 · 39 pts · March 26, 2026 · 43% similar
- Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection surprisetalk · 375 pts · April 03, 2026 · 43% similar
Discussion Highlights (7 comments)
the_real_cher
The title sounds like a LinkedIn tier post Edit: Just skimmed the article: Linkedin tier content.
indigodaddy
Title itself sounds AI-generated. Haven't read the article so have no idea about the content.
tequila_shot
No idea why this is here. Absolutely zero insights.
lpeancovschi
Some ai generated non-sense blocked by email registration form as soon as you start scrolling. Not sure how it ended up here..
tim-projects
> The deeper goal is to keep challenging yourself every single day. This is not a deeper goal, it's a surface level reaction to generalized anxiety. The writer tries to connect together unrelated aspects of their life in a common thread but I got the sense that they simply never took the time to appropriately understand themselves. Running away into more challenges simply perpetuates worry.
adam_arthur
I had the complete opposite experience. The more money and security I made, the less beholden I felt to the workplace and things that weren't personal to me. Less anxiety, less need to appeal to others for survival/success (of course still try to be nice) I've also always had tons of ideas and things I wanted to pursue outside of work. So never lacked for motivation or sense of purpose. My dad recently retired and seems to not have much direction now, so it must be a somewhat individualistic response. Always interesting to see others reactions!
daymanstep
I am so tired of people talking philosophy without knowing any philosophy. So here is some Aquinas for those who want some actual substance. What is the ultimate good for humans? Specifically what does the good for us, and thus our well-being or happiness, ultimately consist? It cannot be wealth, because wealth exists only for the sake of something else which we might acquire with it (ST I-II.2.1). It cannot be honor, because honor accrues to someone only as a consequence of realizing some good, and thus cannot itself be an ultimate good (ST I-II.2.2). For similar reasons, it cannot be fame or glory either, which are in any case often achieved for things that are not really good in the first place (ST I-II.2.3). Nor can it be power, for power is a means rather than an end and might be used to bring about evil rather than genuine good (ST I-II.2.4). It cannot be pleasure, because pleasure is also a consequence of realizing a good rather than the realization of a good itself; even less likely is it to be bodily pleasure specifically, since the body exists for the sake of the soul, which is immaterial (ST I-II.2.6). Aquinas identifies three general categories of goods inherent in our nature. First are those we share in common with all living things, such as the preservation of our existence, Second are those common to animals specifically, such as sexual intercourse and the child-rearing activities that naturally follow upon it. Third are those peculiar to us as rational animals, such as "to know the truth about God, and to live in society," "to shun ignorance," and "to avoid offending those among whom one has to live" (ST I-II.94.2). These goods are ordered in a hierarchy corresponding to the hierarchy of living things (i.e. those with vege-tative, sensory, and rational souls respectively). The higher goods presuppose the lower ones; for example, one cannot pursue truth if one is not able to conserve oneself in existence. But the lower goods are subordinate to the higher ones in the sense that they exist for the sake of the higher ones.