Youtube comments of Me, Myself and I (@me-myself-i787).
-
124
-
122
-
69
-
51
-
42
-
36
-
35
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
21
-
20
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
2D animation actually takes less effort.
It's why shows like Arcane and Monsters at Work have such big budgets compared with Rick and Morty, Bojack Horseman, and Peppa Pig.
There are exceptions, e.g. Green Eggs and Ham was more expensive than Studio 100 shows, and Klaus was more expensive than My Little Pony: A New Generation, but in general, 3D takes more effort and costs more.
Also, a good portion of modern 3D films include 2D segments, including Boss Baby, Coco, Puss in Boots 2: The Last Wish, and Spiderman: Into and Across the Spiderverse.
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Classification: Democrat Vs Republican, Leftist Vs Right-winger
Symbolisation: Trump hat, Libtard, Extremist, Groomer
Discrimination: People are fired for political opinions
Cities deny planning permission to build Chick-fil-A locations
New laws restrict marginalised groups:
"Hate" speech laws (note that political opinion is not a protected characteristic), gun laws, social media regulation making conservative platforms illegal
Instances of bullying increase and societal divide widens:
Flame wars, people breaking up / going no-contact with family members because of political beliefs
We haven't reached dehumanisation yet
Organisation: BLM riots, January 6th riot (please note, often, counter-protesters will join a peaceful protest and turn it violent to discredit the protestors and subsequently their beliefs. This is known as the ad-hominem fallacy.)
Polarisation: Anyone who isn't democrat or republican is wasting their vote, the other side is full of evil pedos, racists, fascists, socialists, want to control America, greedy, selfish, idiotic (How could anyone support/oppose this policy?! It's common sense!)
And then Biden promises to "unite the country"...
And what better way to unite the country than against a common enemy...
It's a good thing Biden doesn't have the charisma Hitler did...
But Sanders and Trump do...
Moderators silenced: Debate participants denounce moderators as biased (and in many cases, they're right)
Preparation: Democrats want to release information about who donates to which political party, enabling violent criminals to target doners for political parties they disagree with (and most criminals lean Democrat because they're soft on crime)
8. Persecution - I don't think we've reached this yet. The lockdowns were supoosedly a security measure against CoViD, but they affected everyone equally so are unlikely to be part of this war
Except most big tech companies and workers who benefitted from the lockdowns lean left
And leftists are more likely to be chronically online, so the lockdowns just continued their normal behaviour
Plus lockdowns didn't apply to people who got the vaccine
But I still think it's a stretch to say we've reached this stage. The lockdowns were probably a legitimate attempt to combat CoViD, plus the vaccines did help combat CoViD so making vaccinated people exempt from lockdowns made sense, but if you're socially distanced in an outdoor area, you're unlikely to catch CoViD, so the lockdowns weren't really necessary. Also, there's no evidence that the vaccines reduced rebellious and dissident thoughts. Although there haven't been any studies on the subject.
Extermination: We definitely haven't reached this stage
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
One female character I like is Gwen Stacy from the Spiderverse films.
Firstly, she's more capable than Miles because she's been Spider-Woman for a year longer than him.
Secondly, she's not capable at the expense of Peter B Parker. The only reason she needed to rescue Miles and Peter in that swinging scene was because Peter started glitching (not through any fault of his own, he was in the wrong universe) and he was the one holding the computer.
Thirdly, she has inner turmoil related to coming out to her father. In Across the Spiderverse, her father (a cop) corners her and then she unmasks. The police think she killed her best friend, Peter Parker, and she did, but she didn't know it was him, since he'd transformed into the Lizard and was wrecking the city. So in the first film, she started out quite cold since she'd just dealt with the death of her best friend.
But then in the second film, in a scene mirroring one from the first film, she unmasks in front of her father in an attempt to gain mercy. But this time, the outcome's different, since justice is a noble persuit, so he didn't find what he was doing immoral, whereas the person Miles unmasked in front of was a criminal and realized how much harm he was causing.
Basically, what I'm saying is she has a bunch of inner turmoil and had to make many difficult decisions.
These films have flaws, mainly their endings.
Miles' monologue at the end of the first one about how the events of the movie caused him to realise that anyone can become Spiderman regardless of race or gender as long as they are bitten by a radioactive spider was stupid. Did he really think the spider bite only worked on white men?
It's clearly meant to mirror Mary Jane's speech at Peter's funeral about how "in a way, we are all Spiderman. And we're all counting on you." But while that speech sounded similar to Miles' monologue on the surface, it had a completely different message. Our actions make us who we are. Doing the right thing because it's right is what makes someone a hero, like Spiderman.
And at the end of the second film, Gwen talks about how she never found the right band for her, so she started her own, whilst standing in a cool pose while the rest of her teammates leap into action. The problem is, she's not really helping her team. She's just standing there while everyone else leaps into action.
But overall, these are great films.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I wouldn't give Barbie that label. It doesn't deserve it. It has been a while since I've seen it, and maybe I would enjoy it more the second time, but lots of people didn't enjoy it.
There are loads of woman-centric films, but a good portion of the modern ones aren't very good. There are some great ones, including The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Tangled, Inside Out, Across the Spiderverse (Gwen and that other woman play a major role in the story although Miles is still the protagonist, so some people might not count it), and maybe Frozen depending on who you ask. (Also, I'm somewhat worried about that Spider-Woman movie, considering how the Spiderverse franchise correlates with the MCU. Into the Spiderverse is like Avengers: Assemble, Across the Spiderverse's first half is like Avengers: Infinity War, and the second half is like Captain America: Civil War. Where does that leave the other two?
Obviously Beyond the Spiderverse will be like Endgame (which is why I predict it will involve time travel), but what about Spider-Woman? That looks like it will either be like Captain Marvel or The Marvels. Captain Marvel is not a good film, and The Marvels probably won't be. Although, Phil Lord and Chris Miller are great at writing characters, so that should compensate for the bad plot, just like in The Mitchells Vs the Machines.)
But recently, there have been lots of awful woman-centric films, so it will take a lot for them to regain prominence. Films like Captain Marvel, Mulan (2019), Toy Story 4 (they made Woody a simp and portrayed Bo Peep as a Mary Sue, and as being in the right for abandoning her child (the exact opposite message of all the previous films).), and many others. Not to mention shows like She-Hulk.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The US has only had superior returns historically because so much bad stuff hasn't happened to the US. These returns will not continue because bad stuff not happening to the US is now priced in.
Also, the reason US stocks have grown so much in recent years is because so many people are starting to invest who never used to invest, and most online influencers (plus Warren Buffet) recommend either the S&P 500 or some subset of MAGFA (Microsoft Amazon Google Facebook Apple). Mostly the S&P 500. As a result, the companies in that index have undergone multiple expansion far faster than other companies worldwide, but worldwide companies have equally good fundamentals, so international stocks have higher expected returns.
Personally, I'm mainly invested in IWFQ, plus some IWFV and EMVL for diversification.
IWQU (which is basically IWFQ but dollars instead of pounds, which makes it more comparable with SPY) has only underperformed SPY by a tiny bit, and the difference is not statistically significant, but IWQU has more diversification.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Remember, companies want you to pirate their content. It's very easy for you to get caught, and when you do, the company will be able to make much more money suing you than they would've made if you paid for the content legitimately. Or more likely, they'll just send you a bill with the amount of money they expect to make from the lawsuit, and drop the case once you pay, so neither party has to pay legal fees and both you and them end up with more money at the end of it. Or, even more likely, they'll send you a bill for more money than they expect to make from a lawsuit, because they know you are unlikely to know that you'd probably be better off taking it to court.
Whatever they do, they make more money than they would've if you bought the product legitimately. That's why they do this stuff: to get people to fight back by pirating their content, so that they can make more money suing you or settling out of court than they would've selling their stuff.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The UK and the US are already in VWRL, so investong in them separately skews the weightings and increases risk. Plus, the UK is performing terribly.
Also, I'd recommend VWRP over VWRL, because VWRP requires less effort on your part. With VWRL, you have to reinvest dividends yourself, whereas VWRP does it for you, allowing you to get the same returns with less effort. And not reinvesting dividends would significantly harm returns.
But also, SSAC is better than both judging based on past performance. Although, I'm surprised SSAC's past performance is so much better, considering they're basically the same thing. But they're run by different companies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alwillk The only labour law which actually could've improved working conditions was OSHA, and that was only implemented after the free market had already significantly improved working conditions.
Child labour laws made childhood significantly more expensive and significantly reduced birthrates with no real benefit and made families significantly poorer, and the only people who benefitted were adults without children who no longer had to compete with children; but even they were harmed because everything they wanted to buy was way more expensive as a result of the reduced supply of labour.
Minimum wage laws helped no-one. If someone is paid less than what they're worth, they can find another job which will pay them what they're worth, or start their own business. As a result, most workers are paid what they're worth, and the only exception is a few workers who don't know their own worth, or whose value is tied to the company they work for (e.g. they're great at making Ford Model Ts but have no transferable skills which would help them in a different job). Other than those workers, the minimum wage only resulted in layoffs, because the minimum wage was higher than those workers were worth. That is probably the main impact of the minimum wage. But a slim majority of workers were unaffected because they already made more than the minimum wage; but even they were affected by the increased cost of products.
And when breaks help workers do their jobs better, companies provide them. No need for government intervention. Mandatory breaks only affects workers who otherwise wouldn't have breaks because it doesn't benefit them, e.g. because their job requires intense focus and can be done most effectively when they're in their flow state, and breaks break the flow state, so afterwards, they have to regain their focus all over again.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, if people would rather come there on holiday instead of living there long-term, they should be allowed to do that without government interference.
Restricting the supply of hotels and requiring other apartments to rent out long-term lowers the number of tourists who can come to the city and unfairly favours people who want to live there long-term.
The only reason short-term rentals are more profitable than long-term ones is because the government artificially restricts their supply. Allowing more hotels to be built would lower hotel costs.
Increased short-term rentals don't artificially raise prices for locals; they naturally raise long-term rental prices and decrease short-term rental prices so that locals pay about the same amount as tourists.
Of course, unwanted behaviour such as drunkenness and loud noises should be prohibited in public places. (And no, grocery stores, pubs, and restaurants are not public places. The owner has the right to allow drunk people, beggars and other unwanted behaviour if they do choose, as long as those people don't enter public areas (and in the case of noise, the building must be soundproofed).)
Locals need to stop acting so entitled. It's not their city. They don't own the place. The city belongs to the landowners, and they have the right to do whatever they want with their land. And that includes evicting locals and renting it out to tourists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SebastianBugiu The way I see it, it's not really being homeless. You have all the essentials: a roof over your head, security, and enough land for an air mattress, without illegally trespassing on public property (sleeping on the pavement is generally illegal because it takes up space which would otherwise be used by pedestrians).
You just don't have the luxuries that come with an apartment, such as walls, aesthetics, utilities, appliances (e.g. dishwashers, washing machines, tumble dryers), and multiple rooms for eating, sleeping and relaxing. You have to do everything in the same place.
However, you could go to Costco and buy a large battery and water tank and filter (but still small enough to fit inside the parking space you're renting), and maybe even use that power to power a microwave and eat hot meals.
Obviously you wouldn't have a refrigerator, so you would need to get food which can last without being in the fridge.
And you could still wash your clothes every so often at a laundromat. And get a Planet Fitness or PureGym subscription and use their showers.
It's not as nice as a regular apartment, but it is helpful for improving your savings and living a nicer life in the future.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah. I've heard The Shawshank Redemption (the best movie ever according to IMDb, with a rating of 9.3/10) didn't make much money due to competition from Pulp Fiction (8.9/10, rank 8), The Lion King (8.5/10, rank 37) and Forrest Gump (8.8/10, rank 11).
Whereas this year, I only know of two movies which even scored above 8/10: Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer (8.5/10, rank 47) and Phil Lord and Chris Miller's Spiderman: Across the Spiderverse (8.7/10, rank 24). (Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part One was rated 8.2/10, but it's dropped down to 7.8/10.
Also, Across the Spiderverse used to be 8.9/10 and in the top 15 best movies ever, but its rank has moved down to a more realistic #24.)
Those are also the only two movies I really enjoyed this year. Dead Reckoning was also decent, though.
Also, those two movies are definitely deserving of their rankings. I didn't enjoy Oppenheimer as much as I should've because I was spoiled about some key moments, but it was still a great movie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's not hard to check the nutritional information label. You want food high in fibre, low in sugar, and low in polyunsaturated fat. (Although, most labels don't distinguish between bad polyunsaturated fat and good monounsaturated fat. But you need some polyunsaturated fat in your diet.)
Other aspects, like how much monounsaturated fat, starch, protein, vitamins and minerals you need depends on your body, and you should consult a dietician. Generally, older people should consume less protein, and young people who do lots of exercise should consume more protein.
And when the vitamin and mineral content is close to the reference intake, be careful. Often there's no danger in eating too much, but often there is. Check online to discover how much is safe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Basically, all of your money goes towards buying companies, as opposed to alternative investments.
Equities provide better returns with higher risks than bonds (lending money), whilst providing better returns with lower risk than commodities, crypto and real estate.
You can invest in equity wherever you live. Just sign up for Interactive Brokers (IBKR), Fidelity, or some brokerage which is available in your region. Then, either pick companies to invest in or search up "MSCI" and you can invest in large groups of companies. Since you're not very experienced, I would recommend investing into "MSCI ACWI". They invest in most companies worldwide, and are a good option for beginners.
You can look at some of MSCI's other funds once you're more experienced, but they come with higher risks of losses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheBLGL Those are not comparable.
Healthcare in the US is expensive because of all the regulation restricting competition, such as occupational licensing, certificates of need, and the Affordable Care Act. Charter schools aren't subject to as much regulation, so will be cheaper.
Private prisons worked out badly because the laws authorising them were poorly-written. A good private prison system would not have minimum occupancy requirements and would have the prisoners rented out to the highest bidder, with the requirement that they be returned in good condition at the end of their sentence, and with the rented being liable for any actions taken by their prisoners. That way, it would've made money rather than costing money, would've avoided the issue of minimum occupancy requirements, and would've served the purpose of protecting the public from these prisoners, ensuring they repay their debt to society and their victims, punishing them, and ensuring that they're fit for release by the end of their sentence more effectively than regular prisons, and revenue from this would've supplemented state budgets rather than draining them. But charter schools are paid per student and don't have minimum occupancy requirements, so it won't have the issues of private prisons. Plus, because school is not a punishment, children and their parents are allowed to choose which school to send their children to.
Thirdly, the Texas electrical grid was not run by private companies.
Fourthly, excessive war is happening because the public voted for representatives and senators who voted for these wars, and all privatisation did was make it cheaper.
And finally, the Jackson water treatment plant was not run by private companies.
Whereas if you look at the tech sector, where there is little regulation, things are going great. Tech is getting cheaper and better every year and most online services are free and reliable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's dumb. If they were a monopoly, they wouldn't be failing.
As it stands, they compete against Warner Bros and Universal, both of which are currently going through a renaissance, with Warner Bros putting James Gunn (director of the critically acclaimed Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy) in charge of the rebooted DCEU, and Universal expanding their parks, building a massive new park in Orlando (and Universal is already competitive with Disney world). Plus, these two companies are profiting the most from the Barbenheimer phenomenon (two great original films with lots of practical effects and lots of hype surrounding them which were released on the same day. It's become a trend to watch these movies as a double-feature).
Plus, Google, Apple and Microsoft all compete against each other, so they aren't monopolies either.
Just a few years ago, everyone thought Meta was too big to fail, and look at where they are now.
Plus, BlackRock and Vanguard don't have a monopoly on the investing market. People could purchase individual stocks, or invest with Berkshire Hathaway or one of their competitors. BlackRock and Vanguard are just for people who want an easy way to invest into index funds.
1
-
1
-
1:10 It sounds ridiculous because you're doing a terrible job of explaining it.
A stock buyback increases your share of the company. So, instead of owning 10% of a $1000 company, you now own 20% of a $500 company, because the company spent $500 buying back its shares.
Now, let's say that the company makes $1000. Now, it's a $1,500 company which you own 20% of, so you have $300. Meanwhile, if the buyback hadn't taken place, then after the company made $1000, it would be worth $2000 and you'd own 10% of it, so $200. Thanks to buybacks, your profits are amplified, but so are your losses. If the company lost $250, then without the buyback, you'd have had 10% of $750 = $75, whereas with the buyback, you have 20% of $250 = $50.
Buybacks have no immediate impact but have a drastic impact on future performance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's insane that you need a TV license even if you don't watch the BBC at all, as long as you watch any live TV.
Imagine having to pay Apple money because I use a Google Pixel.
It's exactly the same. You need the BBC's permission to stream on Twitch or YouTube Live.
It's just like how people go to prison for selling DVDs containing movies they made to adults, simply because they didn't have the BBFC's permission. Really, at the bare minimum, unlicensed work should be treated like 18-rated work, not made illegal entirely.
But this law only applies to physical media and cinemas, not streaming. So, you can distribute your content to others without the BBFC's permission, if you have permission from an internet service provider. Which is much less onerous because there are so many competitors; worst-case scenario, you have to use Starlink to upload your content, which is quite expensive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Anytime a Founding CEO leaves the major leading position of a company, things go downhill."
Not with Google and Microsoft. Most of their growth happened after their founders (Larry Page and Sergei Brin with Google, or Bill Gates with Microsoft) step down and were replaced (in Google's case, with Eric Schmidt and later Sundar Pichai, and in Microsoft's case, with Steve Ballmer and later Satya Nadella).
Apple is a special case, because after Steve Jobs did a bad job as CEO and was replaced with another CEO who nearly bankrupted the company, when Steve Jobs was brought back, he actually learned from his mistakes, and used the money which Microsoft invested in Apple (Microsoft invested the money to show regulators that they weren't a monopoly) to turn Apple into a giant. But even with Apple, massive amounts of growth were achieved under Tim Cook.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blinblinthing Because customers want Apple to control the distribution of apps, because it results in higher-quality apps.
If they wanted to have access to apps outside the App Store, then they would've bought an Android.
If Apple allowed third-party stores, they wouldn't be able to charge such high fees, which means they wouldn't be able to afford to hire manual reviewers to review all the apps on the App Store and filter them for quality, reliability, safety and privacy, so instead they'd have to use an automated system, similar to Google Play. Also, they would have less negotiating power with developers, so no more "Ask App Not to Track" and other consumer-friendly features.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The movies post-Disney's death are way better than the ones from before Disney's death. Beauty and the Beast (1991) was way better than Cinderella, which was Lorax levels of boring.
Actually, most Renaissance films were.
Plus, Wall-E (based on word-of-mouth), Inside Out, Coco, Soul and Luca were all created since Disney acquired Pixar, and they're way better than most classic Disney films.
Plus, Wreck-It Ralph (based on word-of-mouth), and Zootopia.
And outside of Disney, there are even more great movies. Both Spiderverse films (and probably the 3rd one when it comes out), as well as most Christopher Nolan films (the only one I've seen is Oppenheimer, so this is based on what others have said). Plus probably Man of Steel and Batman Vs Superman: Ultimate Edition. And most pre-acquisition Pixar films.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dating apps are difficult to monetise because the only people who are willing to pay for a dating app are those who can't find a partner anywhere else, so if a dating app costs money, the only people on there will be not very good partners, so the app won't do well, but if it has optional paid features, then using those paid features would be a red flag. Advertising is an option, and could potentially work, although some people might find it tacky.
I think the best option is data collection. The app could gather information about what sort of people you are attracted to and your interests, and then use that information in adverts across the Internet. This would work best if it was owned by a company such as Meta or Alphabet. That way, there wouldn't be the incentive to keep people single, because these apps could easily funnel their users to one of the company's other social media platforms. And the data collected could be used to target ads throughout the network. Plus, if you fine a partner on a certain app, that could increase your goodwill towards the creators of the app.
Plus, they could sneak in some adverts for romantic experiences, such as high-end restaurants, package holidays, theme parks, soft play or water parks. These adverts could be highly-profitable.
It doesn't take much creativity to figure out how to monetise a dating app whilst avoiding conflicts of interest.
And you could charge for some features, such as end-to-end encryption, or larger file transfers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When a company spends money, that expense is written off, so they only pay taxes on their profits.
Say a company spends $8 million on something and sells it for $10 million. They would pay taxes on the $2 million they made in profit, not on the full $10 million. The $8 million expense is written off.
The expenses associated with movies would also get written off. However, since they still own the copyright, it's still an asset for them, so they can't write off the entire expense straight away. Instead, as the movie becomes less relevant and the copyright approaches expiration, the copyright depreciates in value and that depreciation is written off as an expense.
Only difference canning a movie makes is that they can write off the whole expense in one go rather than over many years.
Of course, the money saved as a result of a tax write-off is always significantly lower than the amount of money spent on the expense, so Warner would be better off selling the copyright to the highest bidder and then, if they sell it for less than it cost to produce, they can write off the difference as an expense. I don't know why David Zanslav made such a stupid decision. But if you own shares in Warner Bros Discovery, you can fire the Board of Directors in the next Annual General Meeting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rent control with an exception for new construction would probably increase the supply of new construction, because all the existing buildings are used up by rent-controlled renters who are unlikely to leave anytime soon, so there's a lower supply of available housing so developers of new houses will be able to charge a ton and make a ton of money.
Then, the rent control ordinance is expanded to cover housing built after rent control ordinance #1, and only housing built after rent control ordinance #2 will be exempt. Politicians expect to increase the supply of new housing, just like last time.
Instead, the supply of new housing nosedives. Developers don't trust the city government anymore, and they think, "By the time I finish building any new houses, the rent control ordinance will have expanded further." New housing stops being built, and anyone who wants to move into the city can't find a home anymore, because they're all used up by rent-controlled renters. Eventually, without a supply of fresh, innovative minds, the city begins to stagnate, flounder and fail.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think money laundering laws are unconstitutional.
The 5th Amendment protects against mandatory self-incrimination. For example, if a prosecutor asks the defendant on the stand whether he/she did the crime, the defendant could say "Yes", be convicted, and go to prison.
Alternatively, the defendant could say under oath that they didn't do the crime. Then, if they're convicted, the prosecutor could additionally convict them of purjery and lying under oath, increasing their sentence.
Thanks to the 5th Amendment, they have a 3rd option: "I plead the 5th". It's not a confession, AND it's not lying under oath in the case of guilt.
Now, here's the thing. Tax evasion is illegal. So, if a criminal makes money illegally, he/she has to declare where he/she got the money from and pay taxes on it, to avoid committing tax evasion. Prosecutors can then use this intel to prosecute the criminal for their crimes.
So, either the drug dealer declares his income, pays taxes, and goes to prison for drug dealing, or doesn't declare his income, doesn't pay taxes, and goes to prison for tax evasion.
Or, there's a third option.
Declaring the taxes came from a legitimate business.
No tax evasion, no getting caught drug dealing.
The 5th Amendment should allow this.
But no. This is considered money laundering.
If money laundering is illegal, "witness laundering" (i.e. pleading the 5th) should also be illegal.
1
-
1
-
They're publicly-traded companies with separate stock tickers and separate investors. They used to be connected but they split up a long time ago.
Also, BlackRock doesn't invest in real estate, and Blackstone doesn't invest much in real estate. Blackstone's main investments are Lego and Merlin Entertainment (owners of Alton Towers, Thorpe Park, Chessington: World of Adventures, Heide Park, GardaLand, all the Legoland parks, and probably some others I've forgotten about). Meanwhile, BlackRock is mainly known for their iShares ETFs, which have a much better website than most other ETF providers such as Vanguard but BlackRock has slightly higher fees, which is how they (but still much lower than the fees for actively-managed funds). These ETFs passively invest based on a number of factors. Their main ETFs invest based solely on how big the company is, but some others invest based on how well companies performed in the past, based on their return-on-equity, or based on their price-to-earnings ratio. iShares allows investors to choose how their money is invested without the hassle of buying individual shares.
The main companies which are buying up single-family homes are Invitation Homes (INVH) and American Homes 4 Rent (AMH), both of which own tiny fractions of the total housing supply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WanderingExistence Medical costs are so expensive because of regulations, including Certificate of Need laws and the Affordable Care Act.
And the elderly could live with their children. Or if they don't have children, that means they wouldn't have had the expense of raising children, and would've been able to afford to purchase a long-term lease on a small apartment.
Plus, if their money is invested in the stock market, they won't be living on a fixed income, since stocks grow exponentially. As long as they have a sufficiently large nest egg and don't spend too much.
Assuming 5% growth per year and annual spending of $10,000, you would need a $200,000 nest egg. Which is quite large, but not that unrealistic for a lifetime of saving, especially if you don't have children. Plus, generally, the market grows faster than 5% per year. So, assuming a 7% growth rate per year and annual spending of 5% of the invested money, with an initial investment of $200,000, after 5 years, you could spend over $11,000 per year, and you would have over $220,000 invested in the market. And it would keep growing.
As for the sick and disabled, their family can help support them. Unless they were so mean to their family that they don't want to help. Or their family doesn't make much money. But even then, non-profits can
help.
As for how someone could save up $200,000, assuming they make $20,000 per year (a middling income), if they have a frugal lifestyle and only spend $10,000 per year, that's $10,000 per year in savings.
Now, let's say they invest that money into the stock market, and assume they work for 40 years (20-50). This will be somewhat difficult to calculate.
$10,000 × 1.07^40 + $10,000 × 1.07^39 + $10,000 × 1.07^38 + $10,000 × 1.07^37 + $10,000 × 1.07^36 + $10,000 × 1.07^35 + $10,000 × 1.07^34 + $10,000 × 1.07^33 + $10,000 × 1.07^32 + $10,000 × 1.07^31 + $10,000 × 1.07^30+... Etc.
The result is over $1 million.
Even if their investments make no returns, $10,000 × 40 = $400,000. Which is double the minimum nest egg to retire with $10,000 per year.
1
-
@DipayanPyne94 Turns out, YouTube has a character limit.
Here's the rest of my comment:
Charities can help if you're sick and disabled and your family hates you or is too poor to help.
As for how you'd save up $200,000, assuming a middling income of $20,000 per year, and a frugal expenditure of $10,000 per year with the rest of the money saved up, that's $10,000 per year in savings. Even if they don't invest the money into the stock market, $10,000 per year × 40 working years (24-64) = a $400,000 nest egg, double what is necessary for a retirement income of $10,000 per year.
Even if you retire early at 54, that's still $300,000 saved up. Plenty of money.
Or if you retire at 64 but have $100,000 in medical expenses in 40 years.
And if you do invest your savings into the stock market, you could end up with a nest egg of over $1 million.
And $20,000 per year is not an unrealistic income. Obviously, you won't make that much at the start of your career, but you will make more than that at the end of your career.
So it balances out.
Edit: Now the rest of my original comment has appeared, so this comment is somewhat redundant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Investing is easy. Just put all your money into ACWI (iShares MSCI All-Countries World Index ETF). They automatically invest in 3,000 companies worldwide, allocating funds based on how big the company is. That's the safest option.
Or, you could put your money in IWQU.L. (iShares MSCI World Quality Factor ETF) They invest in companies which get a good return on the money they put in, have stable earnings, and have low debt. It has historically outperformed compared with the ACWI, but it invests in fewer companies and only invests in developed countries, so it's slightly riskier. But they still invest in over 200 companies, so it's still a very safe investment.
Or, you could put your money into BRK-B (Berkshire Hathaway) and let Warren Buffet manage it for you. He has beaten the market consistently. But he is getting older and he isn't as sharp as he used to be, so he might not make the best decisions in the future. Plus, Berkshire Hathaway has a lot of debt. As a result, it's not as safe as the other investments on my list.
Or, you could invest into Pershing Square Holdings. They have had exceptional returns over the past 5 years, but no-one knows what they're invested in, and they're not covered by American securities exchange laws, so they're riskier than the other options I talked about.
All these private fund managers have done poorly because they have used riskier strategies in an attempt to beat the market and justify their high costs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alisontomkins They probably use base 6 rather than base 10.
So instead of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, it would be 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14.
And they would probably use different symbols for numbers. Maybe c, d, a, t, e, CP, cc, cd, ca, CT.
But the gist would still be the same.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1