This article made me really nostalgic for a interview on Q that really stood out to me.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cbc.ca&#x2F;radio&#x2F;q&#x2F;schedule-for-thursday-august-6-2015-1.3181153&#x2F;journalist-vs-juiceboxxx-can-the-world-be-divided-into-geniuses-and-critics-1.3181161" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cbc.ca&#x2F;radio&#x2F;q&#x2F;schedule-for-thursday-august-6-201...</a><p>This may seem really random but I honestly feel the NYT Magazine profile is really too aspirational for most people, the author is a Guggenheim Fellow who has the material support of his psychiatrist fiance; and frankly, it sounded all of his friends went to fancy prep schools and colleges that enabled them to embark on professional careers.<p>Sure hard choices had to made between moderately rich and creative and extremely rich and respectable. It leaves one wondering if the author wrote this piece trying to <i>rationalize</i> his life-choices to himself in comparison not with average people, but with the stratosphere social circle of insurance executives, dentists with private practices and lawyers he still chooses to upkeep with.<p>This interview between Juiceboxxx and his author friend at Slate really humanized the comfortable yuppie with a starter-house in his 30&#x27;s, towing the line though in the media industrial complex and still conscientious about art, and Juiceboxx who most people would view as a loser who should&#x27;ve quite after late 20&#x27;s in his music career.<p>I find this piece much more relatable as both features two arguably &quot;losers&quot; in society and how they move forward with their life and reality into their 30&#x27;s.<p>I think it answered the motivation and confirmed the life choices both people have made much better than the posted NYT magazine article.