Lurker > MajesticFerret

If it wasn't for the highly competitive job market, lower salaries, and bad work culture, it would be straight up better than the US in everything.

It's also natural disaster prone which is a negative (earthquakes and hurricanes), but certain places in the US are too.

Amazing public transportation, hyper safe both during the day and night, beautiful with a lot of natural and cultural sights to see, very nice and respectful people, great nightlife, booze is really cheap and isn't grossly up charged everywhere like it is in the US, solid nightlife, practically zero fat chicks, etc. Cheaper than the US at this point too.

If I ever make enough to retire and it hasn't changed too much by then, it's under heavy consideration for a retirement spot.

From my experience, the only really hyper touristy city is Kyoto. Tokyo and Osaka isn't drowning with foreigners at all unless you're going to a hyper touristy spot that locals would never want to go too.

tremain07 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/6/683e905e.jpg

Man these 3 videos being next to each other really shows how just how fucked up we are as a country you got the president spreading lies, you got the vice president doing podcasts and you got the cops saying the exact opposite of the president's lies

Being Alt and being obsessed with opposing party are not "the exact opposite," it's a core tenant of being on the extreme end of the political spectrum.

The_cranky_hermit posted...

Explain how this is possible.

Statistically, most businesses fail. We celebrate (or demonize) the winners (billionaires) but forget about the failures.

If everyone is paid in stocks, there'd a small percentage of people who get lucky and work for the next billion dollar company when it's a start up and become multi millionaires in a few yrs. There's also working for a company that's already successful, but most of these companies pay their employees bonuses in stock options anyways, so they're already doing this to an extent. Also, stock for a company that is already rich usually is kinda meh as it's the swing that really matters and you can see your money, double, triple, or shoot up exponentially.

Inversely, you'd get a much higher percentage of people who would work for a small business only for the stock to lose value or the business to go bankrupt and lose all of your value and months or even yrs of their labor.

Ergo, we'd see more swings with their being more millionaires but also more people that end up completely bankrupt.

Thanatos_the_Great posted...

That's not what communism is.

One of your biggest complaints about capitalism is wealth inequality, so if communism doesn't fix it, it hurts the basis of many of your arguments.

Because of course everyone is able to choose exactly what job they want under capitalism. /s

Moreso than they would under pure communism.

Also, that's also not what communism is, because communism means there is no government

People controlling the means of production would almost certainly need to fall under a sort of centralized, organized group of people that would be considered a government, even if it doesn't mirror what our government would be.

communism is what remains when the socialist state has become redundant and withered away.

Which hasn't happened so there's no need for communism, and nothing suggests communism would take over under these conditions either.

(That's not a theory I subscribe to, I'm not a communist, but if you're going to criticise communism you need to have a basic idea of what it is, and it appears you don't.)

Oh lord, nothing is more obnoxious than dumb pseudo elitists arbitrarily gate keeping their head canon philosophies while not properly explaining how tf their imaginary fake ass system that doesn't exist in any real world context is going to exist.

All you've done this entire time is point out that capitalism isn't perfect. That does not mean you have proven why communism is better

Except you can't,

More absolutes. No one in the planet is qualified to do every job, so me truly having ANY job I wanted is obviously not true.

However, I still have far more job options than I would under pure communism.

because your employer (unless it's a workers' cooperative) keeps part of what would be proper compensation for your labour. That's what profit is.

And they're entitled to profit. They spent the money and took the risk to create the company that added the value to society to generate the revenue in which I get a slice of the pie for working for them.

The million dollar question is how much profit is too much profit, but a lot of people like you seem to think business owners should just take all the financial risk of starting a business and proceed to work for free.

Another work around to this is every company could be publically owned and everybody gets paid in stock, so they have as much skin in the game as the business they are working for, but a lot of people just don't want that. It also doesn't fix wealth inequality, the big boogie man that people like to criticize capitalism for, as that simply creates even worse wealth inequality with simply more winners but more losers as well.

Communism is worth humoring when we have full on robot automation to make up our work force.

Until then, the reality is, 99% of jobs suck and people only do them because they need the money, and if everything paid the same, everyone would just want work the piss easy jobs that require little effort, and society would collapse, as we NEED people doing these harder jobs.

What incentivizes people to do the harder jobs vs the easier jobs? Different compensation.

It's also why UBI won't work until we have slave robots. If its too much, people just won't work and society will crumble, and if it's too little it's basically meaningless and inflation will adjust around it most likely anyways.

Pure Communism requires a form of psuedo slavery/fascism to work as the only way a system that is actually functional and could last would work without robots to keep society running and everyone gets equal wealth distribution, is the government would have to pick your job for you, whether you like it or not, and if you stop doing this job the government picked for you, the ramifications would have to be severe: prob cut you off from all government benefits and income. A system that rewards lazy people and people who work equally will result in everyone being lazy and the system collapsing. That's basic common sense. If I could get paid the same for sitting on couch and playing video games vs going to work, I'd obviously pick the former.

There's also the factor that people will rebel if they're getting paid the same and their job is super hard to someone who's job is super easy and it's literally just dumb luck that decides who gets the easy jobs, which is another reason pure communism requires psuedo slavery/fascism to actually work.

I'd prefer free market capitalism to this. I'm equally fucked in both systems if I'm lazy and don't work and I can control the type of work I do to compensation ratio accordingly.

Right now I'm young and saving, so I can work a job that is a bit more stressful but will compensate me better, and later in life when I'm on retirement savings, maybe I'll work a more fun less stressful job that will almost certainly compensate worse.

Turbotax kinda locked me in as I've been using it for so long it has all my taxes for like 10 yrs all saved and I'm used to using it, so even if there's better options, those above convenience factors keep me coming back.

SpawnShadow posted...

Monsters like these were encouraged by both the initial rise and the second coming of Trump.

Monsters like her exist and would absolutely be doing this regardless of who is in office.

It's literally just branding.

KFC in China tastes nothing like it does in the US. Popcorn chicken's origins apparently trace back to Taiwan, and the way they season popcorn chicken is much different than the way we do, with them adding all these Sichuan spices, etc.

It's also a lot less greasy for whatever reason.

Pizza Hut in China was pretty legitately what you get in America, but KFC felt like an entirely different restaurant.

Tyson was fighting a juiced 27yr old that weighed sub 190lbs against Tommy Fury and somehow magically gained 40lbs in order to fight Tyson...

Tyson had almost zero advantages going into this fight. He had a jacked up leg and almost had to cancel the fight due to pre-existing conditions, is shorter, much shittier reach, dramatically worse gas tank, and even Tysons power advantage was mitigated by Jake magically becoming a nearly 230lbs over night, which for anyone who has ever done weight training knows is literally impossible to do unless you are juicing to the gills.

Most men don't gain 40lbs of lean muscle mass over their base genetic size their entire weight lifting career (over decades), a grown ass fully developed man magically gaining 40lbs in 6 months and still having a flat stomach and no man tits and it all being pretty lean is 100% steroids, steroids, and more steroids.

What did Paul do differently to magically gain 40lbs of lean mass? Eat more chicken and broccoli and work out extra hard? Like he hasn't already been doing this his entire fighting career? Lolololol

I knew Tyson was hosed the very second Jake came into the fight as a juiced up HW despite already having the severe age advantage, as the size and skill advantage was all Tyson had and Jake removed the size advantage, and skill alone isn't going to cut it in combat sports when your opponent outstats you in every category unless your opp is a scrub, and Jake Paul unfortunately is not a complete scrub, which anyone who has seen any of his past fights, whether you like him or not, can attest at this point.

Tora_Sami posted...

This was a good fight to me. Yeah, I was hoping we get Mike from the training videos but unfortunately, father time is undefeated and he was injured before the fight. He obviously wasn't fighting at the level he was training at because of his knee or leg or whatever. It's what happens when you get older, you get injury prone. Also, hake was a fuckin coward and didn't at least try to match blow for blow. Dude kept running away until Mike was gassed. The. Proceeded to take the coward away out and just score points to win. Sure Mayweather did that later in his career but he earned that. Honestly, he should have just went for the knock out. Would have been more respectable that way, then he possible could have caught a knock out Tyson blow. But in the end, Tyson lost because Jake was younger. We all win cause we got to see Mike again and people who are comparing about boring just weren't looking for the right things.

Bro, you must not know anything about boxing if this was your take.

Jake Paul 100% could have knocked Tyson out but didn't. He is extremely aggressive as a fighter and if he rocks you he is very good at following up and going for rhe kill, yet rocked Tyson multiple times and just never went for the kill. Towards the later half Tyson was barely even interacting with him yet Jake chose to go with jabs over his lethal hooks, which Tyson was struggling to consistently block and did dmg most of the time, even when partially blocked.

I honestly respect Jake for not doing it, as giving an old man brain injury when he's a legend, has a lot of pre-existing conditions, and is just there to collect a pay check would make him look bad, but everyone who knows anything about boxing could tell Tyson was exhausted and barely engaging after the 3rd round while Jake had energy for days and had he followed up anytime Mike was rocked, he would have been in a lot of trouble.

I don't think the fight was "fixed," persay, just once Jake was confidant he could win without knocking Tyson out and could tell his gas tank and power were gone, he clearly started taking it easy on him and people who watch boxing and his previous fights could tell.

DarkAssassin89 posted...

Meant to edit my last post but hit delete by mistake.

But anyway what a ridiculous argument. Fourth place finishers often dont medal by incredibly small margins, yet their efforts mean fuck all to anyone (see this very topic for example). The difference between super talented athletes and who edges the others out is the whole point of the event to begin with.

Your argument is significantly more ridiculous than mine.

We have to draw the line at places to hand out medals somewhere, and that place just so happened to be 4th. I agree that it sucks to be 4th, but that is true not just in overall medals for a country but also for the individual. It is what it is.

But still, this line needs to be drawn somewhere.

And to argue, "well, we're fucking over everyone 4th and below so fuck 2nd and 3rd" is where your argument becomes ridiculous.

Those people get medals. Those medals get tracked. The people who don't get a medal don't get one and that's that.

So nothing you have said suggests a single gold should outweigh a gajillion silvers and bronzes other than an arbitrary "well, 4th and lower don't matter, so fuck 2nd and 3rd," which is ridiculous, because these people receive a fucking medal while everyone lower does not.

Either count the fucking medals or don't give them at all. A single gold having more weight than literally dozens of silvers and bronze is infact ridiculous.

DarkAssassin89 posted...

Even if it was weighted golds should be worth exponentially more than silver and bronze.

Maybe G = 10 S = 3 B = 1 for example

Why? Is 2nd and 3rd best on the planet not also a ridiculously impressive feat?

Gold = 3, silver =2, bronze =1 already has Gold weighted 3x as much as bronze and 1.5x as mich as silver. That's a plenty big jump.

At most, I would say Gold = 4, Silver =2, bronze =1.

Gold worth 10x Bronze and 3x Silver is downright respectful to the people getting this medals when often times they are losing to these people by literal fractions of seconds or by a pt or 2, whocheans the skill difference between the top players can sometimes be incredibly small.

ssjevot posted...

US media will just pretend gold is the same as silver and bronze like they always do and say they won anyway.

America:
Temperature in Fahrenheit instead of Celsius
Measurements in Imperial instead of Metric
Olympics in total medals instead of golds

Tbf, Silver and Bronze should be weighted.

It is absolutely stupid that America can be absolutely demolishing China in Silver and Bronze medals but "lose" because we're only ONE Gold short.

As far as I'm concerned, we are winning. And I'm not hating on China at all, and could be subject to change my opinion if they start to wreck in Golds, but as it currently stands, we have more than DOUBLE Silver and Brinze and only one short in Gold? It's a perfectly fair take to say we're winning.

K181 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/06ad4a1e.png

Oh, aliens are real af.

We have literal NASA photos where NASA admits to photoshopping s5ltuff and just casually drops the unedited versions with all sorts of weird stuff in it and literally says nothing. The Vatican has access to some of the most powerful telescopes in the world and then came out with statements like, "yo, we're not saying aliens exist, but if they do, they don't debunk god/the bible."

Yeah, oodles of evidence out there. Definately significantly more than the other stuff.

UnrivaledKoopa posted...

It's no worse than any other fast food place. Whether that means "good" or "not even close" is a matter of perspective.

There's definately a huge difference in quality between fast food spots. If you think Burger King and Smash Burger taste the same you need to get your taste buds checked.

I would give Arby's lower mid tier. It's there with Wendy's and Jack in the Box.

Top tier fast food spots I would say are Chipotle, Freebirds, Salata, Chik fil a, Smash Burger...prob a few others that I'm missing, but all those are fast, cheap (except Smash Burger, which is a bit pricy), reasonable healthy, and pretty high quality.

DKBananaSlamma posted...

Cuz kids are fucking NERDS nowadays!

Literally this.

We see an uptick in everything that involves being a NEET social recluse and a sharp decline in anything that involves people getting out of their house and interacting with other human beings.

It's GoW 3 FF edition but too long and drawn out.

Flashy visuals, epic bosses and soindtrack, some good challenges mixed in but you'll need to play on the higher difficulties to get any semblance of a challenge and you need to effectively beat the game twice to unlock its hardest setting.

Overall, I don't regret purchasing it, it's just painful that a few optimization tweaks could have made it go from a good game to a fantastic game.

buddhamonster posted...

People can beat this game level 1, with no upgrades, on NG+8, using nothing but a dance pad and guitar hero controller.

At a certain point, you really do have to look inside yourself and ask, "am I just not that good at these games?".

I don't think this is true...is it?

I know there's people who can beat it at lv1, people who can beat it at NG +8, and people who can beat it with music games controllers, but I'm 99% sure no one has done it with ALL these handicaps at once. That would just be ridiculous.

Shamino posted...

I really miss living in PA

It's gonna be 104, 102, 101, 109, 109, 109, 110

Pheonix AZ?

Saudi Arabia?

...hell?

Dude is 73 and prob legit forgot what order you're supposed to put the cheese on.

STEROLIZER posted...

20k

Hats off for stepping into the ring but THIS was the amount of money you "couldn't turn down"?

It sounds like after paying for medical bills from all the surgeries you'll need after taking this fight, the profits will be slim. How good is the insurance for this line of work and usually insurance companies ask what your line of work is and charge you or reject you accordingly, so what does medical insurance look like as an MMA fighter?

Iroh

I can't tell if people are being serious or making fun of Tool given how ridiculous their fanbase overrates them, but Tool is a very solid rock band.

Surprised people haven't listed Vicarious and Parabola and I'm pretty fond of Stinkfist too. Descending, Sober, and The Pot have been noted but are fantastic too.

College apt was like 450 a month, shared common areas, and 2-3 roommates sharing the apt.

Once I left my college town, it was a little over a grand for a single bedroom apt with no roommates. That was 11 yrs ago.

Overall, I'd say I overpaid. The location was decent but the complex itself was old and not super well kept. Only reason I got it is it was literally across the street from the place I got my first job out of college so I saved a fortune in gas money and time in travel.