Interesting post, definitely learned some new things, but also came away from the article feeling slightly violated with what was by the end clearly again just self promotion. On brand for Tim too I suppose.
The irony is that he doesn't discuss that he could stop all of this, within a relatively instant moment. Just stop being famous. Stop posting on social media, bring down your podcast and blog and just go live a normal life doing a regular job. Some celebrities can't just quit but at Tims level he surely can.
But he won't, he won't even discuss that possibility here because clearly all of these drawbacks are nothing compared to the two things fame does bring which is dopamine and money. It's also interesting he doesn't openly mention that he's also rich as hell now, and notwithstanding all the supposedly charitable work he's doing benefits greatly from his money. Like dude are you dedicating your life to help others or just to get another dopamine hit from it while still spending obscene amounts on yourself?
I was thinking of taking a vacation and couldn't bring myself to book a ticket to Europe because it felt wasteful to spend so much money and carbon just for sight seeing. I question if people like Tim ever think that. I'm more interested in an introspection about that, instead of another conveniently timed piece on being famous just days after a charade by the kings of such charlatanism Harry.
Going on vacation to Europe is a totally reasonable thing to do. Don’t let people guilt you into believing it’s an outrageously selfish act that contributes to the destruction of our planet.
Millions of people listen to Tim Ferriss’ podcast because they enjoy it, or think they can learn from it. At that scale you necessarily attract some crazy people, just like pop stars and politicians do. Your suggestion that he could just abandon his life’s work is bad and judgmental.
I'm not letting people guilt me, I can do my own math. I can make my own choices on what my personal effect on this planet is and how I should feel about it. As Tim can. Saying I formed my opinions out of hyperbole from others condescending don't you think?
Anecdotally, comments like yours come from people with major anxiety disorders.
So I'm not surprised to find that just last week you wrote:
> So ever since lockdown I've pretty much spend like 18 hours a day on my bed: I sleep there and I do most of my work from there, including meetings, debugging and mild coding. [1]
You judge others for traveling, but you don't leave your bed for 18 hours each day? I'm just at a loss for words.
You're free to live how you like, but if a friend of mine decided to live your lifestyle I would stage an intervention. Not out of condescension, but out of concern. Mental health issues, when left unattended, can spiral out of control. When your brain is sick everything gets warped and twisted and you might wake up a decade later not knowing what happened or where all the time went.
Lol thank you armchair psychologist stalker, for your concern. I have generally found the contrary to be true in my anecdotal experience that people who travel all over, constantly go on hikes and seek out "nature" are the ones trying desparately to find purpose in life. I just decided I don't need to tour Italy to sense purpose in mine. I'm happy to lie down do my work make my money and decide what I'll do with the rest of my life.
> Going on vacation to Europe is a totally reasonable thing to do. Don’t let people guilt you into believing it’s an outrageously selfish act that contributes to the destruction of our planet.
Reasonable by what standard? How is it not outrageously selfish to add extra carbon to the atmosphere which absolutely does “contribute to the destruction of the planet”.
Do you honestly think there are zero consequences to burning further fossil fuels?
It makes no sense to worry about this as an individual while entire countries are failing to act, making the problem worse by refusing to use clean nuclear power and building new coal power plants instead. Or you could see some corporation wasting a million times more carbon than you produce every day because they save a few dollars over a more responsible process. Whether you take that flight or not has no impact on the world at all.
While you worried about this guy going on a vacation, Germany approved dismantling a wind turbine farm to make space for a new coal mine :)
Air travel accounted for 2.5% of CO2 emissions in 2020, and its total contribution to global warming was probably closer to around 3.5%.[1]
Only 11% of the world's population travelled by air in 2018, with at most 4% taking international flights, and 1% of the world's population accounting for more than half of total emissions.[2]
Passenger air travel is projected to grow by about 44% by 2050,[3] and will probably take up an even more substantial slice of overall emissions by then because technologies to decarbonize air travel (other than direct carbon capture) do not yet exist.
The argument you are making is probably least compelling when applied to air travel compared to any other form of consumerism, and HN's readership (generally speaking) is uniquely culpable here.
This is a responsibility Dodge at best. You wouldn't say that murdering someone is ethical just because there are many murders worldwide and one more person is just a minor contribution.
If you believe the total carbon emissions pose a problem, then you have to believe your personal contribution is a problem as well if you you are intellectually honest. The sum of the parts add up to the whole.
You can make an argument that maybe it's not the highest priority for public action if you were to stack rank issues, fine. However, to to claim an individual contribution is exactly zero is incorrect.
You would agree that there are different quantities of carbon for each of the things you listed and air travel, right? Like, you recognize that it isn’t binary generate/not generate?
Tim Ferries is not George Clooney. If he actively avoided the lime light. He would probably only very occasionally be recognized in public within a couple of years. Celebrity culture moves on fast.
All almost anyone needs to do to stop being famous is just stop putting themselves out there. In media traditional or social. In appearances. In the news. They're not royalty or Gandhi to be remembered in perpetuity even without trying. I doubt even those people would be remembered if they didn't try so hard.
You have valid points. To be fair to Tim, he’s quit so many things that use to make him famous and even left California to Austin, Texas in 2015 when that was unheard-of.
As for you my friend, go book that vacation for yourself, life is rather short.
Thanks, I think I have decided I won't travel across the world for purely leisure purposes except maybe for a honeymoon. I'll definitely check out the most fun european countries at some point in my life, but i figure I'll get the right work related opportunity some time or other to do so for each. It makes those visits all the more poignant and memorable to me anyway.
Cool places in California have all been gentrified to the point they lost what made them special- the people and places and events.
So now they have all decided to move to Austin to do the same there.
We used to say 'keep austin weird', but last I was there (and this was back in 2018 or so) I was working on the new high-rises downtown.
Prices at local hotspots were insane, scooters running pedestrians off the sidewalks, 6th street on weekends was just a different kind of crowd (techbros). Rent was through the roof (the high rise we worked on had a rooftop pool, rooftop parking, etc) but place was already booked full.
Back then the number of California plates was huge and growing daily, as did the number of homeless and displaced. I knew a crew who moved to San Antonio and surrounding areas, hours away, because with increased commute and gas prices it was still cheaper than renting anywhere in Austin.
It literally is starting to look like San Francisco, where you have all these luxury condos/apts downtown and they are surrounded by homeless people everywhere.
> The irony is that he doesn't discuss that he could stop all of this...
That is true of a huge number jobs and social roles. Are your job or boss or management sometimes really unpleasant? Quit. Having second thoughts about poopy diapers and sleepless nights? Lots of places have no-fault ways to give your baby up for adoption. Etc., etc., etc.
More generally, your seeming resentment of Jim, his fame, and his lifestyle feel pretty orthogonal to the serious Health & Safety topic of his post.
> couldn't bring myself to book a ticket to Europe because it felt wasteful to spend so much money and carbon just for sight seeing.
Regarding the carbon, thank you. I cannot fathom why so many people still act as if there are no costs beyond the dollar value and consequently don’t feel any guilt whatsoever about the externalities stemming from unnecessary flights.
One of the filters in my decision making is what the impact is on climate change and then I have to assess whether it is subjectively “worth it” given that impact.
I haven’t found that it causes me to forgo modern living. As another commenter pointed out, international flight is reserved for a very small portion of the population. I’ve installed solar panels, electrified my home to avoid natural gas, I generally don’t eat meat or other animal products (perhaps the largest single act of low carbon lifestyle), and drive fewer than 7k km per year. I don’t feel deprived at all.
What’s shocking to me is that with the forest fires and smoke filled air, more people aren’t doing the same thing, but I guess that’s the tragedy of the commons.
So we should only tackle the things that are what? 10%? 50%? This mentality is why we are doomed. So long as every individual item is small we tackle nothing.
I imagine the worst place to be is being half famous or a B-list celebrity. Enough prominence to be at the receiving end of all vile described in the article but not enough money, power and connections to adequately protect yourself.
No, the worst place to be has to be mega famous. Johnny Depp or Michael Jackson level. Literally cannot just go out for a simple meal without throngs of people bothering you or paparazzi constantly trying to catch you in compromising positions. Crazy people who love you so much they want to wear your skin as a jacket. You can never and will never have a normal life. Moving to some far off destination is your only chance at a modicum of normalcy.
I respectfully disagree and since you mentioned Johnny Depp I think he is a perfect example to support my point of view. The trial gave us a unique view into the life of mega famous people like him. Johnny Depp is rich enough to surround himself with friends and loyal people. He is rich enough to own sufficient real estate to have his entourage always near him. He can afford to have a social life in his microcosmos without ever dealing with the outside world.
Maybe this is not as good a life as all of us nobodies can have but I'm convinced it's a million times better than that of B-list celebrities who can neither have a social life in the real world nor afford to build their own world.
I guess that depends on your definition of b-list celebrities. For me, b-list would include people like Bill Maher or Andy Samberg. Both of which I have seen out in public and no one bothered them beyond the occasional "hi". Both certainly have more money than they could ever spend. But even if you consider them A listers, even definitely B list celebrities like real housewives have usually amassed millions in assets.
Imagine being mega famous and poor at that. Are there any examples of this? People who got famous and did not make money from it? I guess some have wasted it though
Being poor and famous is probably the worst case but money alone isn't necessarily enough to protect you if you do not have power and a support network of loyal people.
Both Amy Winehouse and Britney Spears come to my mind as having become enormously popular (and rich on paper) very quickly but lacking the power and support to distance themselves from people that were bad for them.
I remember the story where Amy Winehouse served tea and cake to the Paparazzi waiting outside in the cold for her. This could have been a brilliant joke if she was above all this, but we know she wasn't. She was feeding the predators that were after her and that despite having enough money to pay for protection.
"I always want to say to people who want to be rich and famous: 'try being rich first'. See if that doesn't cover most of it. There's not much downside to being rich, other than paying taxes and having your relatives ask you for money. But when you become famous, you end up with a 24-hour job."
The "BENEFITS" section suspiciously leaves out the one thing most guys mention when asked why they wanted to become famous: Improving your success in dating.
Those who date you because you're famous aren't high quality matches.
There may be an argument that being famous is like being advertised to the widest possible group and that your matches should improve.
But the argument I'd make having seen how fame attracts people is that those who manage to get near you appear on the surface to be high quality matches but beneath the surface are low quality matches.
Also, stalkers. Do not underestimate these, and remember Shakespeare that what seems foul is fair and what seems fair is foul.
There are good reasons famous people date famous people, a kind of mutual safety.
Hey doesn't matter, had sex. Being not famous doesn't suddenly attract high quality matches, it doesn't even attract low quality matches. It only attracts financial scammers.
Probably 90% of the lonely men that spend too much time on the internet, are motivated by sex. But for the at large population, many things motivate them, not just sex.
Or maybe you're sitting on some fool-proof research you have yet to share, that proves this theory of yours?
Right. It's like saying "90% of what people who can't make rent do is motivated by getting money", or "over 90% of what starving people do is motivated by getting food".
There's a hierarchy of needs, and met needs are not that important any more. i.e. "money is only important if you don't have any" applies to most things, not just money.
Of course also, the "need for fame" is not universal. When taken to extremes, it may even be a pathological outlier. As is the need for lots of attention from large numbers of potential sexual partners. As is the need for the second billion dollars.
That seems unlikely, especially when getting older, but sure, there are enough men who have that obsession. What is often easier for this goal than getting famous, is to make sure you build some wealth fast and then move to a place on earth where you are considered rich. Easier than getting famous without the drama of getting famous.
not to humble brag, but as someone who has plenty of good sex with plenty of people, but didn't use to: it might feel like you're doing it all for sex if you don't have it, but when you do, it's clear that there are deeper reasons. they're just clouded by horniness.
He states it clearly in the article: because many women will use the law against to you try an extort money from you. It's well known that the court is heavily biased towards women in any "man vs women" case.
It's definitely a benefit. But I'd assume it getting old rather quickly for a majority of men. Especially because it narrows down your dating pool to a certain type of woman with a gold digging mentality. Even satisfying sexual desires reliably will mostly just lead to addictive behavior and a resulting depression. It's the same for everything. Sex is like fat or sugar for men. We are programmed to take as much of it as we can - but it won't end well.
Tim Ferris is a promoting a healthy life style (at least from his perspective). So, when he talks about dating he means having meaningful romantic experiences. OP probably means having as much sex as possible. If a man has trouble meeting women then becoming famous will not change anything about that issue - but he will be approached more by women who are looking for ego gratification. And that's not the type of women you can have a meaningful experience with. Given that Tim has been suffering from depression for decades I'd assume from own experience that he also had to deal with a romantic handicap for his entire life.
>Given that Tim has been suffering from depression for decades
Based on his blog post 'revealing' that he had being depressed and suicidal, it sure doesn't sound like it.
That post describes a one-year period (possibly less), in 1999, that he overcame on his own by taking some time off from work. He then writes that this 'time off' was when he went to Japan and supposedly became a sumo wrestling champion.
A therapist? Medication? A call to a help line? Depression that was debilitating or that lasted longer than a few months? Not for Tim Ferris(TM).
When I was younger, Tim Ferris was an inspiration. Now, I take everything he says with the most enormous grain of salt imaginable.
Tim Ferris is a charlatan. And he is very good at it.
1. Be poor and not know where your next meal will be.
2. Be a minority in a place with almost no rights for minorities.
3. Stripped of your freedoms and have things done to you with no recourse.
4. Born in a conflict torn region and stuck in a refugee camp.
5. Have disease with insurmountable chronic pain and no medical care.
Fake friends, wondering if your partner chose you for the money, suspicion about peoples motives, narcissistic self obsession, worry about losing the things you got, people judging you.
Urgh no thanks.
Being a deeply average anonymous nobody is the ideal life in the 21st century.
I had this conversation with Dad a few months ago. He asked if I wanted to retire early and I said no. He asked why, and I told him if I could choose my week, I'd work part time on a video game project, golf 2-3x per week, get a date night with my fiancée, and an afternoon/evening with couple friends. I have all of that now (well, I golf 1-2x per week and work "full time" but on a project I like with people I like). Why would I spend the prime of my life optimising to enjoy the rest of my life, when I can have a balance and enjoy my whole life?
I don't think he understands, still. See the Mexican fisherman [0].
Video games and other personal projects rarely bring enough money to live on. If they do for you, then really there's no need to retire. However, you're in a small minority.
I thought it's well-known that what you need is 1) to be well regarded by people closely related to you, 2) to be healthy 3) to have financial independence and 4) to have enough time for you and for the people from 1).
Fame can get you 1) and 3), but it's not going to make you happy of fulfilled by itself. It brings a lot of downsides with it though.
Being famous doesn't even automatically bring you money.
But it does bring "monetisation opportunities" such as e.g. giving paid talks to conference audiences, podcast guest, "write" a book, reality TV contest show participant, or appearing is commercials for gimmicky kitchen goods. You'd still have to decide if you're OK with doing that and then follow through; several of those options give me the ick. For a low B-list celebrity, they will still have to hustle shamelessly for money. Just to keep up with the lifestyle that is expected of you.
I always was unable to imagine how to monetize sudden fame or even lottery win. The first entities and people who stick to you are usually the worst. Wrong moves and the very begging, ie. sharing some data, or committing to an obligation, will be defining for the entire new life.
Fame doesn't get you any of these things. You can be famous for something seriously horrible, after all, and people have. (If you need examples, look no further than serial killers).
Money might get you 2, 3, and 4 though. You are honestly more likely to have #3 if you already have some money to work with.
I had the idea going in that this would a philosophical meditation on “the road not taken” or a personal account of the seemingly inherent risk of self-alienation among the famous. But no; it’s a long self-congratulatory name-dropping warmup followed by a recitation of the many ways people can do you harm.
Lots of intresting insights: `I would only have guessed a few of the points he makes. I have experienced very low level versions of some of the issues he mentions...
Usually last names only are used by journalists after the first time. Therefore you see one name it's usually the last name with no title. The exception is VERY famous people with unique first names like Oprah, Elon, LeBron.
I suspect the reason people say "Bill" and "Tim" is because these companies have 100K+ employees for whom using their first name is the norm and expected (for example would be weird to watch management use anything else with each other at all hands meetings), and they do it in public too, so other people on the tech internet do it too.
I just took it from guy's domain without bothering to learn his full name. Is knowing or not knowing him some kind of internet meme or what? If not MS' predatory global OEM practices I wouldn't know "Bill" either, unfortunately I do.
I think Tim said it best with the recent Kevin Rose podcast and he stated single is just swapping problems from a relationship. Famous and not is similar just problem swapping. You can fly private and solve problems with capital but maybe a stalker shows up at your house.
> single is just swapping problems from a relationship
I feel this really hard, but at the same time, at least when single you can work towards solving problems, which sometimes is completely impossible with a relationship if it's the wrong relationship.
I would also argue most or all of the "single" problems are ones that can be solved with the right outlook and enough self work.
I don't know Tim, but 4HWW, nutritional products and other things about him make me believe he is a scammer. Maybe that kind of fame attracts the worst kinds of fans.
Yes, fame like everything else in life is not only positive, but gangster fame is not like Tom Hanks fame.
You don't think Tom Hanks gets death threats and other crazy stuff?
Think about Rebecca Schaeffer: "At the age of 21, she was shot and killed by Robert John Bardo, a 19-year-old obsessed fan who had been stalking her." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer
> You don't think Tom Hanks gets death threats and other crazy stuff?
Probably Tom Hanks gets a lot of crazy stuff. But, it is perhaps more common for a scammer to be killed by a fan or someone else than Tom Hanks type person to be killed.
> Think about Rebecca Schaeffer
How many Rebecca Schaeffer lookalike murders occur per year versus scammer murders per year?
Sigh, the arrogance and smugness in this thread is disheartening. Wow, you don't know who Tim Ferriss is! So impressive! Or you do know, and you consider him to be a scam artist! Got it.
I read the 4HWW when it came out and I liked it but I agree that it was a bit over the top and chest-puffing. I think Tim says that himself these days. I listen to some of his interviews every now and then and to me, he comes across as a humble and genuinely interested and curious man who means well.
This blog post doesn't state that he wishes he wasn't famous, it tells you some facts that you might not have considered if you have that same desire. I do not want to be famous myself but I still found it interesting.
I feel like this is directed at me. No, I didn't know who he is—but there's no smugness or arrogance in my not knowing, it illustrates the point that fame is relative, contextual and most importantly, fleeting. His blog post about gaining 34lbs of muscle in 28 days was in 2007, and I'd never even heard of it. If it was that effective and I've not heard of it in all that time, I think I can safely say I didn't miss out on some kind of breakthrough.
I could equally twist this back around to you—ooo, you know who Ferriss is and read his books and watched his interviews, suddenly you're a lifehacker and can present pithy soundbites and "techniques for producing 15-minute female orgasms" if his 4-Hour Body book is anything to go by.
But there's no smugness or arrogance on your behalf either, right? So why assume it of others?
> I don't see how your not knowing about him or his old blog post proves in any way that fame is fleeting, though.
Person in question makes some sensationalist claims, sees some success in selling techniques to achieve those claims. Proceeds to rinse and repeat formula of what will get attention and continue riding the wave.
Currently at an interest score of 16 versus a peak of 100 in January 2017.
Whilst he may have briefly been a hot topic, if you weren't exposed to him/his brand/his ideas at the height of his relative fame, you're statistically less likely to have been since. People having not heard of him seems a given looking at the interest graph—nothing to be smug about.
Following the 4-Hour Body book, he did a 4-Hour Workweek book. As per https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/4pat3x/the... : "The title is misunderstood a lot, it's an attention grabber. Edit: he actually admits in his podcast that it's purely market research about the catchiest title that lead to what it is."
Ferriss openly admits to doing x because it gains attention and was continuing to ride the wave, as evidenced by the Google Trends graph, even going so far as to name his next book another "4-Hour" thing for attention.
So no, I don't think my statements are bold, and I don't think I'm smug. Frankly, I don't give a fuck who Tim Ferriss is, but I have a problem with telling me I'm something I'm not when you don't know me nor how I feel.
Call the article posted to HN what it is: a puff piece for a known self-promoter.
Certainly interesting, and shines light on some unexpected sides of social media fame, I shared it with a few striving for it, not to discourage them but to set expectations.
He never said that guy was a friend or even ever met him, but he was just someone “who commented a lot” on his blog. So just some random blog reader who clearly had mental health issues and who became obsessed with Tim.
You don't even need to be famous to be on the receiving end of this kind of thing. You can just be unfortunate. The more output you have in the public domain, famous or not, the more there is to latch onto.
Right. He used that as an opener/attention getter but he never explains it's relation to the rest of the article. The commenter who suicided knew Tim before fame + had longer extended contact. The opposite of the article of unsolicited spontaneous issues with people. Didn't like that he led with this story, the article felt less unique than that story
He's a human optimization expert, totally legitimate, and not a snakeoil salesman, who just so happened to put on 34 lbs of muscle IN A MONTH following a style of training, HIT (not to be confused with HIIT cardio), that the scientific literature has largely debunked, that was used as a marketing ploy to sell exercise machines and ultimately a company (Nautilus), and has historically only been used and promoted by a small minority of bodybuilders, the most famous of whom (Mentzer & Yates) may not have even used it, and were voracious users of PEDs even by professional bodybuilder standards (Mentzer used meth before workouts, and died at 49 of a heart attack). As Tim describes (can't link to it without getting caught in the spam filter):
> I weighed 152 lbs. for four years of high school, and after training in tango in Buenos Aires in 2005, that had withered to 146 lbs. Upon returning to the US, I performed an exhaustive analysis of muscular hypertrophy (growth) research and exercise protocols, ignoring what was popular to examine the hard science. The end result? I gained 34 lbs. of muscle, while losing 3 lbs. of fat, in 28 days.
He's written a series of human optimization guides, including the 4-Hour Body: An Uncommon Guide to Rapid Fat-Loss, Incredible Sex, and Becoming Superhuman. Totally legit.
> Upon returning to the US, I performed an exhaustive analysis of muscular hypertrophy (growth) research and exercise protocols, ignoring what was popular to examine the hard science. The end result? I gained 34 lbs. of muscle, while losing 3 lbs. of fat, in 28 days.
Gaining 34 lbs of muscle in a month is impossible to do naturally. Gaining 34 lbs of muscle in a year would be incredibly unlikely to happen naturally. Gaining half of that in a month of blasting Tren would only happen to hyper-responders. He’s definitely lying about that, and probably juicing too if he did anything close to that over anything close to that period.
I like Tim's podcast sometimes but "after training in tango in Buenos Aires in 2005" has to be the most douche thing I have ever read and Astor Piazzolla is one of my fav musicians.
Hardly shocking though a guy who wrote the four hour work week is a bullshitter.
Right now, you're being mean (and I guess I am, as well), and we should be mindful of the fact that Mean People Fail: http://www.paulgraham.com/mean.html
I find it a bit odd the poster a few up joined HN just to defend the author in great detail that I don't think someone would be able to come up with off the top of their head.
Are you two talking about me? The irony in my "defense" of him was anything but subtle, and you should have had no difficulty construing my implication that he's a BS artist with a history of making obvious BS claims, like 34 lbs. of muscle in a month, to market himself and his products.
Americans would admit they owe their looks and fitness to everything but plastic surgery and steroids. I'm waiting for an American book "How to lose fat and gain muscles by dozen surgeries and a range of substances inserted into your orifices and injected into your bloodstream.. and have cosmic sex too". I would pirate this book, obviously.
I never implied he used steroids. His claims of muscle gain were never rigorously, independently verified, and were likely invented partially or whole-cloth. He named a researcher at San Jose State University, and said she did hydro-static before/after measurements confirming his results, and she apparently took issue with him using her name and institution for commercial purposes, and also couldn't publicly disclose and confirm his purported results due to the terms of the consent form he signed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2100335
Ultimately we have no before/after DEXA scan confirming any muscle gain in any timeframe, and just Tim's word and some questionable before/after photos. And even with copious steroids, 34 lbs. of muscle in a month would be insane.
The irony is that he doesn't discuss that he could stop all of this, within a relatively instant moment. Just stop being famous. Stop posting on social media, bring down your podcast and blog and just go live a normal life doing a regular job. Some celebrities can't just quit but at Tims level he surely can.
But he won't, he won't even discuss that possibility here because clearly all of these drawbacks are nothing compared to the two things fame does bring which is dopamine and money. It's also interesting he doesn't openly mention that he's also rich as hell now, and notwithstanding all the supposedly charitable work he's doing benefits greatly from his money. Like dude are you dedicating your life to help others or just to get another dopamine hit from it while still spending obscene amounts on yourself?
I was thinking of taking a vacation and couldn't bring myself to book a ticket to Europe because it felt wasteful to spend so much money and carbon just for sight seeing. I question if people like Tim ever think that. I'm more interested in an introspection about that, instead of another conveniently timed piece on being famous just days after a charade by the kings of such charlatanism Harry.