[shortcake27]

My philosophy is that you should do what you want to do today, instead of doing something you don’t want to do because of a hypothetical future repercussion.

Could this harm future employability? Maybe. But what’s the alternative, work a job you don’t want to maybe have a better chance of working another job you also don’t want in the future? Personally, that’s not the way I’d like to conduct my life. Opinions differ on this, and that’s OK. Everyone has different priorities.

If you’re happy working on your own project, I think that’s fantastic. To me, that’s more important than optimising for a unknown future.

[legalizemoney]

Maybe I misunderstand your comment. Do you run into the street instead of stopping to look both ways, in case of a hypothetical car?

[shortcake27]

Cars aren’t hypothetical. They’re real. You are deliberately misunderstanding and exaggerating my point to prove, well, I don’t even know what you’re trying to prove.

First, my point is about optimising for happiness. Running out onto a road without thinking has nothing to do with happiness.

Secondly, the risk profile between these two scenarios is completely different. In one, the OP _might_ have a slight difficulty in finding employment in the future (we actually don’t know, because there are so many variables). In the other, the OP is likely to be dead or seriously injured (which is something we actually know). These scenarios are not comparable.

[legalizemoney]

I meant it earnestly! If I misunderstood, I have one other guy in here who made the same mistake. Your original comment reads like you’re against the concept of considering unpleasant counterfactuals in general.

[hnfong]

Pretty sure OP considered the counterfactual and determined it was such a low probability, the alternative utility gain too low, that it shouldn't matter in the pursuit of happiness.

Taking calculated risks isn't recklessness.

[shortcake27]

Fair point, apologies I took your comment the wrong way. As the sibling of this comment mentions, that wasn’t what I meant, but can see how my original comment left room for interpretation.

[paulcole]

As clever as your comment is, the consequences of not looking before running into the street are very immediate and very high. The consequences of the situation being discussed won’t be felt for at least a year (the runway the OP has with their severance), are hypothetical, and probably not that severe.

A lot can change in a year. There’s a lot of jobs. The OP can probably get one of them. Some employers won’t care at all about what the OP thinks they might care about.

Your risk tolerance may vary but I’m not going to do something I don’t want to do for a year because of what someone I’ve never met before might think a year or more from now.

[dasil003]

Looking both ways is high ROI with very clear outcomes. Solo founding has a much broader set of outcomes. Even just within hireability this can cut both ways.

[derstander]

The original author said:

> My philosophy is that you should do what you want to do today, instead of doing something you don’t want to do because of a hypothetical future repercussion.

Even interpreting this absolutely literally, the hypothetical car would be a today problem — not a nebulous future one. “Survive the day” would, for most, seem like a present want.

[Southfield14]

I definitely agree with this.

Though some of these other comments may suggest otherwise, there's no reason that the thing you want to do today can't also be the result of careful consideration.

[iancmceachern]

A bird in the hand is two in the bush

[mejutoco]

And, according to the Spanish version of this saying, equivalent to to 100 birds flying.

[malux85]

I want to murder someone I’m mad at today, and I should do it because I’m ignoring hypothetical future repercussions?

Yes that’s hyperbole but the point stands, delaying instant gratification on impulses, individual tactics, individual strategic and societal level is a hallmark of a stable society encouraging conscientiousness.

[shortcake27]

If you murder someone, the repercussions are not hypothetical; they are very real.

The OPs scenario is hypothetical because we cannot know effect this will have on their future employment.

You are arguing against something I never said.

[qawwads]

Repercussions should not be what keeps you from murdering someone anyway. It shows you're still on stage 1 on Lawrence Kohlberg's scale of moral development [0]. I don't think your argument is valid for most people.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_o...