Lurker > Jabraham

TheJustice posted...

This is the second time today I've seen the word "nadir" and from two different posters. Meanwhile, I don't think I've ever seen that word before today.

Really? It's a perfectly cromulent word.

I'm a liberated man, I know crying's not weak.

divot1338 posted...

It does kind of have a pandemic end. By which I mean unsatisfying and abrupt.

What do you mean? The show is still going on.

PoopPotato posted...

Is he Dennis?

The people behind the show were also behind It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia and a few of the actors are the same. So you can see some similarities.

The_Popo posted...

Since Endgame, there have been 10 movies and we are in the middle of the 10th television series. If we just look at movies alone, this is where 10 movies got us in the original MCU build:

1) Iron Man
2) The Incredible Hulk
3) Iron Man 2
4) Thor
5) Captain America: The First Avenger
6) The Avengers
7) Iron Man 3
8) Thor: Dark World
9) Captain America: The Winter Soldier
10) Guardians of the Galaxy

The TV series are much longer than individual movies, but if we count one TV series as being equal to a movie, then we need to add another 10 movies:

11) Avengers: Age of Ultron
12) Ant-Man
13) Captain America: Civil War
14) Doctor Strange
15) Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2
16) Spider-Man: Homecoming
17) Thor: Ragnarok
18) Black Panther
19) Avengers: Infinity War
20) Ant-Man and the Wasp

After all of that, it was just Captain Marvel and then Endgame. And as I said, the TV shows are much longer than the movies, so we have basically sat through more media than it originally took for them to get to Endgame.

Also, it took 11 years to go from Iron Man to Endgame. Since then, it has been only about 4 years since Endgame.

We have been absolutely slammed with MCU stuff that had largely gone nowhere. Weve had enough material to get to a new Endgame, yet we havent even reach the equivalent of an Avengers.

Weve allowed for the buildup. We just arent experiencing any buildup.

I think this post really hits the nail on the head. There were fewer individual heroes before, so crossovers happened sooner. Now we've had so many solo movies/shows and not many big team ups. Shang-Chi, the Eternals, Moon Knight, Werewolf-by-Night, Kate Bishop have all been one-off characters so far with little interaction with other major characters. Marvel probably introduced too many characters and the storylines have gotten pretty fragmented now. If they wanted to keep mining content long-term, they could've saved more people for later. Like are they actually going to use Moon Knight anytime soon in a crossover movie?

Solid_Sonic posted...

Some people don't really feel invested in the candidates running and to place a vote in an election where you don't stand behind any candidate wouldn't be honoring one's personal values. Voting as a practice should be one of commitment, at least that's how I always hope it would (these days a lot of voting seems more like it's done to stick it to the opposition rather than advocate for a platform you yourself stand behind).

The problem with this mentality is that someone is going to win the election and they are going to be part of the government. If elections were voided because people didn't vote, then it makes sense to not vote, but the fact is that not voting just makes it easier for the worse person to win. Whether they win with one vote or a million, they have the same power.

My kitty right when I got her. Its been over a year now!https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/0/4/AANX8EAAE_Nw.jpg

You also get unlimited ban chan and the meat is marinated!

That's a lot of words to avoid admitting that making absolute statements might not be appropriate in all settings!

Questionmarktarius posted...

It's fantasy to assume the states can't afford that, yet all fifty states and various outlying areas somehow can.

For one thing, certain states have more money than others, so pooling the money does make it easier for all to afford things, and for another, the issue isn't really that some states can't afford it, it's that they just won't provide those things because they don't want to.

WNBA and NBA players don't have anywhere near the same, so it's not a one-to-one comparison on the affordability of All-Star game tickets.

There's only 144 WNBA players total, and the arena seats 12,000, so it's not like giving them all free tickets would cost the league that much.

FactsKeepHurtin posted...

lmao at implying the government is good at using tax funds to support people in need.

Donating to a charity allows them to put their money towards a specific mission they support. Giving more taxes to the US Government allows them no control over how it's spent. They're just funding more tomahawk missles at that point.

Is it better to have a few billionaires have outsized influence over policy? As someone pointed out, Gates doesn't have particular expertise in education, but he's donating a lot towards education foundations that share his beliefs. The government might spend tax money on some things you don't want, but are all of the billionaires going to support what you support? At least the government is supposed to be accountable to the people. It's better to have a republic than an oligarchy.

famfam posted...

I don't really understand the "tax break" argument. If you donate $1 million, your taxes won't go down by more than $1 million, will they? In other words, you are a net negative if you do this, right? In other words, its more financially beneficial to not do it (and just get taxed more, but keep most of it), is it not?

That's true, but as people are pointing out in this topic, you can use that money to buy goodwill or funnel it somewhere where you still have control over the money or use it to influence policy, and get a tax break from it.

Even if rich people are donating out of actual goodwill, it still doesn't change the fact that the money should instead be collected in taxes. Taxes are (theoretically) accountable to the public and many of the big foundations aren't doing anything the government couldn't also do.

No_U_L7 posted...

So youre saying 4k is enough in nyc?

Yeah, you can live on $4k/month net income. But like I said, I disagree with you that living alone and owning a home are essential.

Prismsblade posted...

Most people don't really know or understand the concept of lifestyle creep.

And can only see their current standard on living with say a 40k income vs a 80k.

While not realizing that likely their going to upgrade their apartment or house, buy better goods and clothes, dedicate 10% of their income to their 401k, start investing, and possibly even plan for a vacation once a year.

Obviously it's easy to spend the money you have, but that doesn't mean you can't live on a million dollars a year because you can barely afford your mansion and your boat. You can certainly live better with more money, but there's still a threshold at which you can live comfortably.

No_U_L7 posted...

That was in response to you saying I was bad with money

And that NYC is expensive

I mean you can spend a lot of money anywhere. That doesn't you can't live off of a lot less than that. And it still makes it sound like you're out of touch.

No_U_L7 posted...

Ive never said what I did or how much I make ITT (or at all), that was a comfortable expense for me

Sounds like you're guilty of this statement from earlier in the topic:

Agreed TC. The people who make statements like that are usually applying that money specifically to their situation. Not everyone has the same circumstances

I'm not sure why you'd then bring that up in response to someone saying $4k/month is sufficient to live in NYC unless you thought your experience was widely applicable.

No_U_L7 posted...

You think 4k is enough to live on in nyc?! <b>I went to nyc for 10 days last year and spent 4k on that trip alone</b>

Also youre thinking about rentI consider owning a home shouldnt be a luxury

This seems to be a good indicator that you're just not very good with money... In any case, you usually spend more on a vacation than you would if you actually lived in a place.

No_U_L7 posted...

How much do you think homes/rent costs here

I've lived in the Bay Area, so I'm well aware of the housing costs. Still, on a budget of $2000/month, you can find places to live alone, and you can probably find better accommodations for less money if you have roommates.

No_U_L7 posted...

To name a few: being able to heat/cool the house without worries about how it impacts the utility bill, a few streaming services, stretchy pants (youd be surprised how many people wear 100% cotton pants), not splitting the bill on dates

Those are all relatively cheap. I'm still not sure how you wouldn't be able to afford that on $80k/yr, even in CA.

No_U_L7 posted...

Youre missing the entire point of the topic, you are actually agreeing with me without realizing it. Roommates fall under Point #3-once youve lived alone you will probably never want roommates ever again

Although 80k isnt enough in cali or nyc and borderline in Vegas or Miami

I don't think people are entitled to live alone, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

I'm also skeptical that you can't live alone on $80k in CA or NYC. Maybe not in Manhattan or in SF, but you should be able to find a place a little further out.

I'm now curious what kinds of things you consider essential that others would consider a luxury.

If you have no children or other dependents and are healthy, $80k is plenty to live on even in the most expensive cities in the US. In the cheapest cities, you can live extremely well. Even $30k is enough to enjoy some luxuries if you're willing to live with roommates.

brestugo posted...

Yeah, I see that clause as being directed towards possible filibusters. As always, we'll see. The devil's always in the details.

I think the issue is more when the Senate is held by a different party than the President, like when McConnell refused to allow Garland to have a hearing for many months. So with the law, the President would get their nominee, unless the Senate explicitly voted against them.

willythemailboy posted...

Looking into this a bit more and there's at least one provision that should be absolutely terrifying to anyone who thinks the current court is too far right. The current version of the bill is summarized on the House website as:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5140/all-info

That last part would mean a minority in the Senate could obstruct a vote long enough to prevent the majority of the Senate from rejecting a justice that should be rejected. THAT is the part that would require a constitutional amendment to pass, not necessarily the "senior justice" partial retirement thing.

It depends a bit on what "act on" means, but they got rid of the filibuster for justices, so a minority can't block a nomination anymore. It's why Amy Coney Barrett was able to get confirmed so quickly.

thronedfire2 posted...

that makes no sense at all. Do you think people making 100K+ should be getting food stamps too?

Administratively, it's easier to give benefits to all and then have progressive taxes to get those back from those who are rich. Our tax system exists to do that, although it's not perfect due to the loopholes and weak enforcement. If we stop means-testing, there's far less paperwork for everyone involved and everyone who is eligible would actually get the benefit, instead of our current system where many eligible people lose benefits due to technicalities.

These people have clearly never hugged anyone or been hugged.

SquantoZ posted...

That's dependent on the business. For some, it may very well be necessary. For others, it may be a big part of their culture and a selling point for people wanting to work for that business.

There's no wrong answer here but it's clear that its highly dependent on the business, it's model, it's nature of work, and the people. The fact that this is such a big topic that people argue about is silly. There's no 1 single solution here but hybrid can be a happy medium in most cases. Giving people too much freedom of choice will not be beneficial to a business depending on their goals and business model.

Yeah, that's clear to everyone. No one's complaining about going into the office when it's necessary, but a lot of the push to return isn't for any good reason, which is where the arguments are.

SquantoZ posted...

Everyone thinks of this purely on a "personal basis" without taking others into consideration or the needs of the business. There are people who were stressed out and depressed working purely remotely and it was hurting their productivity. They needed a bigger connection to their colleagues to be more engaged at the workplace.

I don't think anyone is arguing that people should be forced to work remotely, just that people who can work remotely should be allowed to. Forcing those people back into the office to interact with others is not going to work so well, since they're not going to be happy and just spread that negativity to others.

SquantoZ posted...

To be fair, I think a hybrid policy is the best answer. 1-2 days at the office and the rest at home should be a happy medium. Not everyone wants to be fully remote and not everyone wants to be at the office every day.

Maximum flexibility is the best option. Remote work for those who want remote, hybrid for those who want hybrid. There's no need to arbitrarily force people into the office if it's not necessary for the job.

And the GOP are still going to win the White women vote...

GranTurismo posted...

how about guys who are very familiar with blood testing technology? they should have known that using such a small amount was impossbile

Pretty much every VC who knew anything about it didn't fund it. Holmes was successful by going after rich people who weren't familiar with science or the medical sector, so they were able to be tricked. The actual scientists working in the company were kept siloed, so they didn't realize how many problems the other teams were running into.

Prepuberty, there isn't even really a good reason to segregate sports by sex.

I took both, and differential equations was harder for me because I took a harder version of the class. I ended up using a lot of linear algebra because I did a lot of spectroscopy, but I don't use either in my current career.
GranTurismo posted...

oh, do you believe that you need to be very intelligent to do well in that stuff? have heard people on both sides of the aisle

I think it mostly comes down to having a good teacher and learning at a comfortable pace. It's math, so it all makes sense if you think long enough about it.

Only Americans who lived in NYC or DC understand how good it is to be able to get around by public transit. Everyone else has only ever experienced bad public transit, so they're skeptical about it.

People would be openly flying the Confederate flag in the present day... maybe even bringing it into the Capitol. Oh wait...

Chicken posted...

Sorry I shouldve specified buying a bottle at a liquor store. Im sure full bottles are overpriced at the bar too

Buying at the liquor store is always cheaper than at the bar. You might as well be asking why anyone drinks anything at a bar (other than complicated cocktails).

Kradek posted...

Have any places actually forced you to tip for picking up food or do you just feel like they guilt you into it/expect it of you? Because as far as I'm aware there's no mandatory gratuity for pick up orders.

I've actually been to one place, where they included a service fee just to hand me a bag with my takeout order... But everywhere else I've been doesn't do that. I did tip on takeout during the height of the pandemic though.

There's definitely a noticeable trend of movies featuring actors or stories about people of color having lower ratings on IMDB. The lower-profile ones don't get review-bombed like this though.