storminabucket

And even if there were, you could be subsidizing Mozilla, because they can simply give Firefox less now that you're supporting it

It's just that "it depends" is not very satisfactory, it's the default answer to all questions.

All questions are fractal in nature, and unsolvable without a problem-domain. By defining the domain a thing can be answered, such as "how much force do i need to throw this ball over there?" Otherwise no definite answer can be provided, because the next galaxy over tips the scales just a bit, as does the infinitesimally small difference in the ball's structure, and so forth.

>During COVID I saw with my own eyes that you can go from 100-to-1 in 6 months if you haven't made sure you got emergency funds on the side

This is why I think a social aid/basic income system with free healthcare is a must. You can't choose to be healthy and not to have accidents. I think we must all provide a basic net for the things outside our control. Of course I'm biased, being a finn in covid times is a tremendous blessing

I think it is in our nature to strive for more. An interesting read about this phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill

We aren't made to be happy, only motivated

I'd argue the desire for consumer goods is very much equal for men and women, and is not inherently a bad thing. Some people are content when they have _things_, others seek thrill and experiences. Getting drunk on power is a trip worth striding for for many.

The hamster-wheel is not based on any single subset of desires, it's the sum of all of them

I'm confused, the article seems to be actually asking the question. "It varies" is brought up multiple times, but that doesen't exactly help outlining how we would be able to define minimally good life.

It also asks whether a reasonable, caring and free person would trade places with the worst off, which I'd find very unlikely. What you can realistically do about it is unknown.