The thing is, my examples are directly related to life, to things that can affect one's existence, rather than dying pointlessly and miserably. What brings in money isn't so decisive, because anyone can earn enough for their basic needs. Therefore, what prevents a quick death is a higher priority. Is that reasonable? Yes, it is! Is it logical? Yes, it is! If such an approach, where survival isn't valued at all, doesn't suit someone, then either they are immortal, which is impossible (a mental institution is calling for them), or their ego is too big, meaning they won't last long. After that, it's no longer life, but mere existence, which is not far from being homeless, a loser, a nervous wreck, and the like.
Added 2 minutes later
To be fair, Einstein received the award not for the theory of relativity, but for the photoelectric effect.
Will you provide proof? Or did someone tell you in secret?