Just a small thing — you either correct it ("[values]") or you note that the error is present in the original ("vales(sic)"). Doing both doesn't quite make sense.
Starts at around 3:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlJD0i_WwdQ
Edit: With regard to your comment about puppy videos, I'm curious what you thought about this paragraph from the article:
> It is useful to distinguish particular incidents of happiness from a more pervasive condition. While happiness results from the achievement of specific goals, when a person seeks happiness itself, he is after a more global kind of satisfaction with his life—with his daily activities, as he is engaged in them, as well as with what they all add up to, when he steps back to survey the totality. This more encompassing happiness requires knowledge that his time and energy are being spent in worthwhile ways and that he is efficacious in acting for the things that he cares about.
> Happiness is the psychological condition that results from the achievement of one’s [values](sic).
I'd say that's meaning. Puppy videos give you happiness. They don't give you meaning.
> Values are ends that a person acts to gain and/or keep. They are those things that a person cares about having or doing.
That... what? My values are not my ends or my activities.
These two definitions end with a footnote:
> Both characterizations are from Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness (New York: Signet, 1964) 31, 16.
Without taking a stance on Rand, is that really the foremost place to find a definition of happiness and value? This strikes me as intellectually dishonest to the point of silliness.