Yes, passive income businesses didn't fail because operators stopped caring. They failed because the markets were structurally broken.
Dropshipping, affiliate SEO, print-on-demand... these face the same margin compression regardless of how engaged you are. Ad cost inflation, platform saturation, algorithmic displacement, etc... it doesn't matter whether the operator is engaged or not.
Caring's a moat only where differentiation is possible. In commoditized markets, it doesn't move the needle.
While we're on the topic of nuclear pollution, "nuclear semiotics" is an interdisciplinary field of research focused on creating a "warning message intended to deter human intrusion at nuclear waste repositories in the far future, within or above the order of magnitude of 10,000 years."
While 10K is a few orders of magnitude greater than 500, I imagine the problems may be similar... if not more extreme.
To change your thinking about goals, you’ll need to recognize
that goals aren’t for everyone.
And that’s completely okay.
Goals and problems are mentioned in your original post, but they
are fundamentally different things.
Goals usually mean you’re adding value. Problems mean you’re
fixing something. Mixing the two is likely what’s making things
difficult. Sometimes we make a goal to solve a problem, and
sometimes we try to solve a problem to achieve a goal.
But goals and problems are not the same thing.
This isn’t just semantics.
We’ve all witnessed those visionary folks that are born to set
and achieve goals e.g. Steve Jobs.
Then there are the problem-solving geniuses who can break down
and debug just about any problem you throw at them.
"...where there is not certain and irrefutable evidence, to conclude that there is a defect in a vaccine and a causal link between the defect and a disease on the basis of a set of evidence the seriousness, specificity and consistency of which allows it to consider, with a sufficiently high degree of probability, that such a conclusion corresponds to the reality of the situation, are compatible with the Directive.
Such evidentiary rules do not bring about a reversal of the burden of proof which it is for the victim to discharge, since that system places the burden on the victim to prove the various elements of his case which, taken together, will provide the court hearing the case with a basis for its conclusion as to the existence of a defect in the vaccine and a causal link between that defect and the damage suffered."
If I'm interpreting this correctly, this seems like it's meant to protect the victim.