> 100% of your time has to be devoted to benefiting humanity?

I don't see him saying that, or even implying it. Rather, he seems to be indicating that is a valid vector by which the activity can be rated. It is not the only thing it can be rated on, nor is it even necessarily _worth_ rating it on that. But it is a thing that can be discussed.

Where at all did I say you need to devote 100% of your time to humanity? Where at all did I say a person is better or worse than another based on how productive their intellectual interests are? Not sure my response deserves that much hostility. The original article is purely about whether or not eve online and similar pursuits burn intellect without any positive impact on society. I am on the nihilistic end of the tech spectrum. I made no argument that working on apps in their free time makes one better than one that spends their free time writing novels. The reality is that intellectual activities can have some meaningful benefit to humanity and some activities benefit humanity more than others. That is what the article is attempting to tease out and measure.