Ask HN: A philosophical issue has been bugging me. What are your thoughts?

This came out of a debate between me and a couple friends who live in Silicon Valley. I went out to visit them, and we got to talking about industry history, including members of this community who aren’t a part of it anymore, and then the conversation turned to morose realizations like how, for all we do to ensure we are remembered, we’ll all be forgotten in 10,000 years, which is not a long time at all. So then we started arguing and couldn’t resolve this question. Which life, of the two, is better?

Life A: your proximity to an event that is a national embarrassment to your friend, ironically, brings fame to you despite your having only moderate talent. You spin this fame into a startup, then another, and then eventually become a top figure in the investor community. You make billions and have so many followers on social media, you can say something utterly stupid (which you frequently do) and still get 500 likes.

Life B: you are an obscure writer, mostly ignored and occasionally hated. Your talent is obvious, and some of your work is masterpiece level, but every single thing you do to achieve publicity fails. Nevertheless it is quietly understood that, if you are remembered at all in 100 years, you will be acknowledged as one of the greatest minds of your times.

Which one, in the final analysis, actually wins?