I’m an atheist and frequent places where men have anonymous gay sex and the majority of the men are “devout” Christians for me it’s a kink, I don’t feel a lot of guilt, and neither do they, lies are their choice and it shows.
> I don’t feel a lot of guilt, and neither do they
I can tell you haven't tried to date such guys. They may not feel enough guilt to keep them from engaging in casual sex, but many of them absolutely feel guilt. Indeed, sometimes it's a complex of immovable guilt and shame, in the style of classic Freud, with the entire panoply of coping mechanisms deployed to deal with the dissonance (projection, affect isolation, displacement, dissociation, reaction formation, etc.)
This is how we incubate various diseases. Monkey pox being a good example (but it’s origin story doesn’t get mentioned because it goes against the current zeitgeist).
I’ve noticed developers have a pretty low bar for being a “psychopath” I’ve found psychopaths to mostly be people that see programmers as disposable. This is pretty much true, hence the psychopaths everywhere.
$500k is nowhere near enough to be 'safe'. One 'unfortunate event', a couple of bad years in the market or a few years of high inflation and you'll have eaten into your capital to a point where you'll either have to drastically change your lifestyle or watch your capital dwindle away long before you die.
Of course it would. If you had $500M instead of $500k then none of those things would affect you in the slightest. Inflation could run at 20% for a decade and you could lose 80% of your capital in a series of bad investments, and your day to day quality of life would still be just fine.
Amusingly this comment and replies are exactly the problem here.
You say 300k is the maximum anyone should have, people reply stating it's way too low. Ok, so what is the number, 600, 1M, 10M? Hint, we'll never agree and it's as clear as day to me.
Comments are also stating why 99.5% don't see why we take the "rich's" money. This thread is proof of why.
Oh! These statistics are not reliable. It depends on your asset allocation profile, time to entry, fees... Etc.
That's the claim we see online in general but that's probably not necessarily true.
Even backtesting using a moving-window average should show different figures.
> It’s around $300,000 that’s when you can get your 9% return
If you stay in good health, never have to purchase real estate or car then perhaps... but then you'll still have to live somewhere, commute somehow, and the life quality will be... of a poor person.
I imply you mean heterosexual relationship? No woman will create household with a man with comparable net worth. There is only short time span in life around secondary school and early university when it's possible and which most miss. I've never dated a woman with net worth even approaching mine. "what's mine is mine, man is the provider" - whether it's a call center lady in Romania, or a doctor lady in Switzerland. Now, how will capital gains on 300k pay for living in extreme luxury?
Not OP but I can somewhat understand the sentiment. Russia, China, and Iran are all actively developing a more aggressive and robust anti-West attitude.
You might be right. It was mostly before my time so I can't say for sure what the atmosphere was like back then. I wonder if China and Iran are potentially a bigger military presence now than they were in the 60s and 70s. Russia feels less so, as it's really struggling to complete its objectives in Ukraine, a country which is in some sense a proxy for the West. But I also feel like there's a growing potential for coordination between Russian, China, and Iran, and that's quite worrying.
In the UK immigration is definitely on the rise, but I can't see how it's relevant to what I'm talking about, nor can I see how it's as apocalyptic as you make out.
Is that a fair assessment though? I mean, the West has a great deal of failings and hypocrisy and books can be filled but it's also full of people who do value human rights and have effective political means to apply counter pressure.
Unfortunately it seems that humans just aren't equipped with the proper intuition for how to handle the behaviour of enormous masses of people grouped in societies. It seems that we apply the same moral intuitions used for individuals, judging "the West" or "Muslims" or "China" as if they were a single person with a single unified mind.
Each society hosts a variety of people with different individual attitudes and values, and each society produces and consumes a different mix of ideas some of which may be beneficial or problematic (both domestically and Internationally). Ideas like exploitative capitalism or jihadism or whatnot; powerful ideas that have real effects.
Yet people are people and have far more things in common between each other than what our instincts prime us to think.
Yeah I really never got why people were mentioning it. It seems like Elon Musk is just good at hype, because it never had much exposure to me at all even when he bought it and I am very online and advertiser friendly.
For better or worse (ok, worse), Twitter is the current intellectual trend-setter. You may not be there but many a youtuber/podcaster/academic/politician are scrolling through hot takes as we speak. The cultural power of Twitter vastly outweighs its raw number of users (relatively low).
I'm not sure Twitter is that relevant anymore, as you can't really browse it without logging in. It's more like an echo chamber for influencers now than a platform interesting people could use to reach their audiences directly.
I used to be active in a corner of the science Twitter, but it started dying long before the takeover. Algorithmic recommendations killed it. When a platform starts prioritizing recommendations over explicit user choices, it also prioritizes influencers over people with something interesting to say.
