Lurker > darkknight109

keyblader1985 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/6/654bd028.jpg

DXNB

N (neither - yay allergies!)/P/N/T

Although if "text" includes e-mail, switch me to a hard X on that one.

MeatiestMeatus posted...

thatsthejoke.jpg

I mean, the joke would still work fine if it was the skater. If you don't follow the NHL, you probably are unaware that there was even a goalie goal last week.

MeatiestMeatus posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/f/f5b7c1c1.jpg

Fun fact: Jarry is the goalie.

adjl posted...

I'm in this picture, and I don't actually mind it.

I mean, honestly, in most professions today how much you actually know from rote memory is probably a lot less valuable than how adept you are at finding the information/methodology you need from available sources (mostly online) and putting them into practice. Speaking from experience, even doctors and engineers frequently use Google (or technical equivalents) on a regular basis.

MeatiestMeatus posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/a/afebc0e8.jpg

It would be a lot more than 23 birds.

-12 partridges in accompanying pear trees
-22 turtle doves
-30 French hens
-36 Calling Birds
-42 Geese a-laying
-42 Swans a-swimming

Totalling 184 assorted poultry, plus however many might have hatched from the geese a-laying over that timeframe.

Blightzkrieg posted...

I've never been able to get the support points on 3D prints not look like shit.

Zareth posted...

I'll pay the extra to not have to work with resin or file off a million attachment points, thank you

If your supports are leaving a bunch of marks that aren't easy to clean up, it's a sign your print settings are off. If set properly, your supports should generally come off with a little gentle pressure and not leave any notable marks behind on the model. Usually hard-to-remove supports that leave scars on the model are a sign that you're over-curing it and need to turn down your cure time (I had that issue when I upgraded printers and couldn't figure out why all my prints were looking like shit).

I need substantially *less* time to clean up a 3D print compared to one of GW's plastic models, where I have to file off flash lines and sprue marks and where there's generally more assembly involved.

Zareth posted...

Games Workshop doesn't use .99 markings anymore, which is odd because they're one company that would definitely want their products to seem cheaper than they actually are lol

Honestly, anyone who has the money and the lack of sense to buy GW models in an era where 3D printers exist probably isn't even looking at the price tag, so GW could put "your kidney" on there for all the difference it would make.

Very strong.

I'm an engineer, so I kind of had to be to get the degree (though, perhaps unsurprisingly, many forms of engineering - including the one I'm in - involve shockingly little math and what is present is done by computers).

Count_Drachma posted...

This is the kind of spectacle you'd expect to see in congress, not the senate.

The senate is congress - specifically, one half of it.

1990 Nintendo World Championship Cart (grey edition).

Last one I saw go up for sale sold for north of $25,000.

Idiot_Savant posted...

*raping a student

As soon as I saw the verb choice in the topic title, I immediately thought, "Female teacher, male student, right?"

No one would ever describe a male teacher having sex with a female student as "banging" her.

People aren't reading the question.

It's not "keep working" vs. "retire", it's "keep working a barely minimum wage job" versus "do something else".

One million dollars - assuming that's after taxes and any other deductions - is over 30 years of minimum wage salary. There is zero reason to keep working that particular job if you just won a million dollars. If you win a million and aren't near retirement age, a healthy chunk of that money should go into upgrading your skills into a more lucrative career. A million isn't enough to retire off of these days, but it's more than enough to live off of for whatever time you need to go take some courses, or even a full degree, and get yourself in a career that will bring in more money and let you retire faster/more comfortably.

I wouldn't even make it a "hunting buddy", because that opens up all sorts of conflict of interest issues. Just have it be something akin to a bail bondsman. Registered shooting clubs fill similar functions in other countries (in many European countries, if you want to own a gun you must be a member of a club and they must vouch for your suitability and, depending on the purpose of purchase, need to own that particular gun).

BlackScythe0 posted...

People on the internet frequently tend to think that just because they know/like someone popular that everyone knows who they are because they are popular.

There are a ton of huge content creators I never hear of until they get into some sort of controversy such as this.

It's not a matter of liking him or not or even the size of his audience (which was massive [proportionally] back when he was one of the only games in town, but isn't particularly big today) - it's that he was basically one of the first online video content creators in the gaming sphere. Dude was hugely influential and basically helped set the table for video content creation back when that was still a new medium online.

It's like not knowing who Hideo Kojima is - sure, you may or may not be a fan of his work - or you may not have even watched it at all - but unless you first got into the hobby within the last 10 years (which I doubt describes anyone posting on GameFAQs these days), you probably have heard his name at some point.

Rasmoh posted...

Only if you consider being able to go to a shooting range to be the only reason to own a gun.

OK, I'll bite - what burning need do people have that requires them to be carrying a gun that overrides the right of victims to live in safety?

EvilResident posted...

Who

I'm honestly amazed that someone who posts on an old game forum like this doesn't know who Yahtzee is. Dude was one of the first ever online gaming video content creators. He was a pioneer in the industry when Youtube was still brand new.

Whether you like him or not, you should definitely know who he is. Dude is up there with the AVGN in terms of OG video content creators.

Zareth posted...

He could just call it fullyramblomatic, his old youtube name

That is, in fact, exactly what he's doing. And Extra Punctuation is now Semi Ramblomatic.

Rasmoh posted...

It's rather disingenuous of you to portray being stripped of a constitutional right as being mildly inconvenienced and to pretend that the only consequence of having ones guns taken away is being unable to go to the range.

That really is the only meaningful consequence, though.

I am so glad I got out of that province while the getting was good.

I mean, what do you think SOLDIER training is for?

Metalsonic66 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/c/c34a94f3.jpg

The only flaw with this plan is that 13 months of 28 days would give us a 364 day year, meaning you would still need one "oddball" month with 29 days, and a leap year every four years to keep things aligned with the solar cycle. That sadly screws up what would otherwise be a magnificent system for keeping dates and days aligned.

captpackrat posted...

I have no idea what this says, but that somehow makes it even better.

Is it that hard to read? I don't even know what language that is (Google seems to think Polish, so let's go with that), but it turns out serotonin, dopamine, and cortisol don't change much across language barriers.

Hilarious satire topic.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I'd argue that this should say "worst controller", but honestly, even in its generation the Dreamcast existed, and it was coming on the heels of the N64, so even I can't say that.

It was still a terrible controller though.

No way the Gamecube's controller falls behind the original Xbox controller, pre-revamp. That thing was big enough to beat bears to death with.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Never underestimate the power of Halo.

Not only was it one of the best-selling games of that generation period, it had a huge percentage of the overall install base of the console. The sales numbers alone are something like 1 out of every 3 people who owned an Xbox were going to own Halo (though that might be deceptive - throw in people buying replacement consoles and the correlation probably goes up). Halo 2 comes even closer to being like 1 copy for every 2 Xbox owners.

Your numbers are off - Halo 1 sold about one copy for every five Xboxes and Halo 2 sold 1 copy for every three Xboxes (and for the latter figure, I wasn't able to determine if that was including sales of the PC version).

That's not really a mark in the console's favour, though. Like... Halo *made* the Xbox, to the point where if Halo hadn't existed, I think it's unlikely the Xbox would have made half of its eventual sales (yes, Halo's sales numbers were below that mark, but Halo was the reason why people gave the Xbox a shake and that built interest via market penetration). I'm not sure I've ever seen a console that was so reliant on a single franchise to move units. The next best-selling game on the Xbox after the Halo games was Sneak King, a joke game given away by Burger King with their value meals, and the dropoff from Halo to the next games on the list is steep; no game on the Xbox sold even half of what Halo 2 did, and, disregarding Sneak King, only one managed to meet that mark for Halo 1 (Fable). Contrast that with the PS2 and Gamecube - take away their top two best sellers (GTA:SA and Gran Turismo 3 for PS2, SSBM and Mario Kart: Double Dash for GC) and you still have really solid libraries without any big sales dropoffs.

If Halo didn't interest you, there was almost no reason to buy an Xbox - even back then people noticed that all its best games were either multiplatform or wound up on PC six months to a year later. If you had a PS2 (and, given its status as the best-selling console of all time, something only the DS challenged it for, you probably did) and a PC capable of running modern games, you already had access to 90% of what the Xbox was offering and a lot more besides.

The Gamecube is probably my second-favourite Nintendo console after the SNES. Its library was absolutely legendary. The amount of fun I had playing SSBM, F-Zero GX, Phantasy Star Online, Animal Crossing, the Metroid Prime duology, Tales of Symphonia, Paper Mario TTYD, Rogue Leader, MGS: Twin Snakes, and the Sonic Adventure remasters was unreal. It might have been the console with my highest average playtime-per-game, as it had multiple games I dumped thousands of hours into (specifically SSBM, PSO, and Animal Crossing). Even what I'd dub it's "second tier" games - the Baten Kaitos duology, Star Fox Assault (the multiplayer, anyways), Super Mario Sunshine, etc., were fantastic.

Muscles posted...

How about we just get rid of parties altogether and let individuals run based on their own politics?

While a good idea in theory, that would be virtually impossible to police and likely wouldn't work in practice.

Straight-up banning political parties would generally violate any free speech/freedom of association protections in any democratic country, and even if it didn't it would be easily circumvented. Instead of a candidate running as, say, a member of the Liberal Party, they would run as the candidate endorsed by the Liberal Political Association.

Dikitain posted...

They have zero chance of winning because everyone believes they have zero chance of winning. If people would actually get out of the mindset of "one or the other" then it wouldn't be a problem.

It would, actually.

The problem with first-past-the-post voting systems, as adjl accurately observed, is that it favours two dominant parties. In virtually every country that elects its leaders via FPTP, there will be two - and only two - parties that trade power, and if there are any other parties they are small supporting players at best, never truly threatening to take power.

The reason for that is multiple parties on the same political spectrum dilute the vote, strengthening their ideological opponents. Canada is an excellent example of this. The country is notably left-wing, as in any given election approximately 60-75% of the country votes for centre-left or left-wing parties; however, the Conservative Party (and their predecessors, the Reform Party, the Canadian Alliance, and the Progressive Conservative Party) has spent its entire existence, dating back to the founding of the country, either as the governing party or the official opposition (i.e. the second-place party). This is because while there are typically 3-4 left-leaning parties large enough to attract significant numbers of voters, the Conservatives are the single party of appreciable size on the political right (the only time this wasn't true was when the Progressive Conservative Party split, with the more right-wing elements of the party breaking off and forming the Reform Party in the 90s; until they reunited in the early 2000s, this split gave the governing Liberals more or less an uncontested path to re-election, as the already small right-wing vote in Canada was split between the two parties).

Notably, although there are currently four left-leaning parties (the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Greens), only the Liberals have ever formed government or even come particularly close. The only time this wasn't the case was when the Liberals imploded around 15 years ago, and the NDP took their place as the dominant left-wing party (which lasted for precisely one election cycle, after which Justin Trudeau was elected as the Liberal leader and promptly won the next federal election and has led the country ever since).

Since FPTP punishes multiple ideologically-aligned parties, you will never see three or more "contenders" under that voting system. You will always only have a two-horse race, even when there are more parties in the running.

Grendel_Prime posted...

Sensible, moderate Republicans are being browbeaten into ineffectual obscurity by the hard-right MAGA minority, and anyone with any semblance of a spine to speak out against it is leaving politics (Joe Walsh, Mitt Romney).

The Republicans current course of allowing an extremist minority to steer the ship is not sustainable long-term. There will be a reckoning. Barring the Democrats committing a massive failure of policy or governance, Republicans are going to see diminishing returns as more and more moderate voters turn away from the Trump experiment.

I'd like to think so, but as H.L. Mencken once said (possibly apocryphally), nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

I mean, Sonic is literally the fastest thing alive (Source: The Noisy Neighbours), so objectively he would win against anyone who isn't dead or otherwise inanimate.

Israel apparently blew up a hospital in Gaza today. 500+ dead according to Palestinian authorities. Israel has claimed that Gaza is responsible and it was a friendly fire incident. I am sceptical, to say the least.

adjl posted...

He didn't decapitate any babies

FYI, the baby-decapitation story is now generally believed to be a hoax, as there isn't any evidence substantiating it.

caprontos posted...

There is no genocide

I mean, Israeli president Isaac Herzog literally said a couple of days ago that there were no innocent civilians in Gaza, which is quite a statement considering a) It comes from one of the highest offices of the Israeli government and b) That statement would include the 800,000 children that live in Gaza, who make up just under half of the territory's populace (and who have been dying in appalling numbers during this war).

That certainly sounds like genocidal language to me.

Lokarin posted...

well, there's a chance that all of NATO sans the the US will fight the US over their Israel defense

No, there really isn't.

Very, very few countries would willingly pick a fight with the US and no NATO country is on that list.

KingDavid posted...

And why the fuck did Dominion settle? Usually when someone settles, it usually means that fighting the lawsuit wouldn't have turned out good.

That is not even remotely close to true.

Settlements provide surety for both parties, which is why they're the preferred way to handle these disputes. Most cases never see the inside of a courtroom, because the parties will settle beforehand. That's not because one side or the other is doubtful about their chances in court, it's because they still have some control over the outcome there. Once you put a case in front of a judge or jury, you have no idea what's going to happen.

Keep in mind that this "settlement" was the single largest settlement whose amount is publicly known in US history (it's possible there may have been a larger one whose terms could not be disclosed, but that's unlikely), which suggests Fox knew they were sunk, else they would have more aggressively negotiated for a lower amount or taken their chances in court. And while it was only about half of what Dominion was asking for, that also doesn't really mean anything, because when you file a lawsuit you can ask for any amount you want - more than the amount of cash in circulation in the world, if you're so inclined. The amount of damages you claim has no relation to the actual damages you suffered or what you're likely to get, even if your case is successful, it's just a number you're putting on the forms to show how much you're asking for.

HornedLion posted...

Watch some kids shows today.

What are the kids' shows these days anyways? Like, I know of some shows aimed at the under-6 demographic, but I honestly couldn't tell you what shows are even out there for school-aged kids.

Alien, if it counts.

mariolover2 posted...

I read every collection as a kid at the library. I even had an Odie stuffed toy. When the movie came out I was pissed. I love 2d animation and felt the old styles deserved better.

jim Davis originally had a comic of a mosquito with similar deadpan.

A gnat, actually - Gnorm Gnat.

Blame Aladdin. That movie was the start of the "hire a celebrity to voice one of the main characters" trend that subsequently exploded in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Yes - bought a dirt cheap one years ago to use as a mobile translator on trips to Japan (I speak conversational-level Japanese, but not well enough to get by unassisted) and that's literally the only thing I use it for.

adjl posted...

Yep, pretty much. Understanding why Hamas is retaliating does mean anyone thinks the retaliation in question is justifiable. It just means understanding why it's happening.

This exactly.

One of my constant frustrations when entities like Hamas (or Al Qaeda or ISIS or any other number of radicalist organizations) get brought up is that some people either can't or refuse to understand the distinction between an explanation and a justification/rationalization. Saying Hamas exists and is doing the things that it's doing because Israel has oppressed and marginalized the Palestinians for decades is not the same thing as saying what they are doing is just or right or excusable. Understanding and stating the reason for an atrocity does not somehow make it not an atrocity.

And, as others have mentioned, it is entirely possible for both sides to be in the wrong on a conflict (not necessarily equally wrong, just wrong), and that is very much the case here. Both sides have murdered and tortured innocents in horrific numbers. Both sides refuse to hold their worst elements to account. And so we have a war between asshole terrorists and an asshole government, and no one will benefit at all from this fight except the extremists.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

To be fair, neither did Palestine.

Depends on your definition of "Palestine".

There has been a place called Palestine (or regional variations thereof) more or less uninterrupted since Antiquity, with the term first showing up in Egyptian records in the 12th century BC. That said, was there ever an independent country named Palestine pre-WW1? No, not really - not unless you go way back in history (and even then that's questionable, given that the idea of "nations" is a relatively modern one).

Devil_May_Cry posted...

Sure there is some favoritism in treatment of Jewish people above other ethnic groups but it is hyperbole to compare it to an apartheid state because it is minor if so.

apartheid
noun
A policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.

Israel has a law that says only Jews have national rights: https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy

Israel routinely approves projects built for and by Jews, but overwhelmingly rejects building applications submitted by Arabs and Palestinians: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-rejects-98-of-palestinian-building-permit-requests-in-west-bank-s-area-c-1.8403807

...and some of those housing units that are built are "Jewish only", with non-Jewish Israelis barred from living there. This is entirely legal under Israeli law. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-advances-plans-for-over-2100-new-settlement-homes/

Property law in Israel is heavily slanted to favour Jews over non-Jews, which includes allowing Jews to simply lay claim to Arab homes and forcibly evict the current occupants: https://www.ft.com/content/830e05ed-244c-4e9f-a7ac-265c41f79546

Israel routinely expropriates and demolishes housing and land in Jerusalem to make way for highways, "green space" and other "urban improvements"; curiously, these policies are wielded exclusively against Arab neighbourhoods: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2016/06/22/land-and-conflict-in-east-jerusalem-the-role-of-urban-planning/

Israel has laws that allow it to demolish the homes of terrorists, but has only ever used those laws against Arabs; no Jewish Israeli terrorist's home has ever been subject to demolition: https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/analysis-is-demolishing-palestinian-terrorists-homes-but-not-jewish-ones-discrimination-467955

Israeli settlers regularly conduct "price tag" rampages against Palestinian villages, destroying Palestinian property and attacking and sometimes killing the inhabitants. The Israeli military rarely intervenes, unless the Palestinians fight back. Israeli settlers are almost never arrested or charged for these incidents: https://time.com/6289342/israel-palestinians-turmus-ayya-violence/

Please explain to me, in detail, how these policies do not constitute apartheid.

Devil_May_Cry posted...

The reason Palestinians are viewed so harshly by the Israelis is because Hamas. If Hamas didnt exist than expansions of the settlements would cease and there would possibly be a two state solution.

Hamas was founded in 1987.

Israeli settlements have existed and been in a state of active expansion since the 1970s.

Devil_May_Cry posted...

There are good and bad people of all ethnicities backgrounds,etc but it is clear Hamas is the bad actor not the israeli government

Both are awful and deserve one another. In a just world, the Israeli government and the wingnuts of Hamas would all be locked in a room and left to rot, while the civilians of both groups figured out their lives.

Ozmose posted...

A lot of people don't know that Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952, but declined it. Makes you wonder what things would be like if he'd accepted. It probably wouldn't have been world changing, but it's still fun to speculate.

Einstein was a brilliant scientist, but he was no politician (and some of the anecdotes of his personal life suggest he could be a bit of an asshole). I think he was probably very wise to decline the presidency.

faramir77 posted...

Of all the armed conflicts in the world, the one between Israel and Palestine has always made the least sense to me. What a total waste.

I mean, the Palestinians are basically stuck in a permanent prison with no way out. They have no national representation, as Palestine as a nation does not exist (and Israel is doing their very best to keep it that way). Yet the people who do de facto control them on a national level - Israel - give them no representation and only the barest minimum of governmental services.

As long as Israel continues to make itself an oppressor and occupier, the siren call of Hamas and the other jihadist groups in the region are going to find lots of willing listeners. When your alternative is wiling away your life in impoverished misery, striking back at the people who are keeping you that way - however futile a gesture it might be - seems like a pretty good idea. We've seen this over and over again in that region - Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon. These groups don't find recruits by making it seem really cool to die in a car bomb, they do it because the areas they recruit from are severely impoverished and they're the only ones who offer something that seems like stability, agency, and, most important of all, money. Put together an economically stable region with opportunities, especially for young men, and the prospect of dying to an Israeli bullet is going to seem a lot less enticing.

But it's not going to happen. This conflict is a direct result of Israel's continued rightward drift over the last several decades, and the unfortunate reality is all it's going to do is make Israel tack even further right and erode sympathy for the Palestinian cause within the one country that can meaningfully do something about it. Thousands of people are going to die, Israel is going to make life even more miserable for the Palestinians, that misery is going to breed a new generation of militancy, and we'll be right back here again in a decade or two. Maybe the sheer magnitude of the butcher's bill for this conflict and the failure of Netanyahu and his cronies to prevent it will cause Israel to reconsider their current course... but I highly doubt it.

Count_Drachma posted...

I feel like this is perhaps a cautionary tale in reaching across the aisle because oftentimes those allies will turn around and slit your throat at the first opportunity.

McCarthy could *easily* have gotten the Democrats to save his job. What he did for the past nine months is court the lunatic fringe of the Republican party, constantly giving into their demands in an attempt to placate them, then when he inevitably discovered he couldn't control them, he asked Democrats to save the Republican party from itself, but offered them nothing in return. He gave Democrats no reason to step in on his behalf; accordingly, they didn't.

The Democrats are the minority party - it is not up to them to be babysitters when the Republican caucus turns into a circus. Had McCarthy governed more from the centre and showed more of a willingness to work with Democrats and not do dumb shit like opening up an "impeachment inquiry" that even some of the quackiest Republican law experts are saying amounts to nothing or breaking his agreements with... well, everyone, he might still have his gavel today. But ultimately, if you spend your days pandering to the hard right and say, on the record, that you're offering the other side zero concessions to work with you, don't be surprised when they decline to take a bullet for you.

When I was 13.

OhhhJa posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/4/4/AAdPqnAAE5qI.jpg

I always love the very subtle wrongness about AI art. The more you look, the weirder it gets.

ReturnOfFa posted...

I really don't know what the Dems that voted him out were thinking though. Just an opportunity for worse.

He'd already broken several deals with the Democrats, he started this ridiculous "impeachment inquiry" that even the Republicans' own witnesses have admitted has not implicated the president in any wrongdoing, and he outright said he was refusing to offer them any concessions in return for their votes.

From a nakedly political perspective, there was no benefit to the Democrats for saving McCarthy. The more dysfunctional the Republicans behave, the better the Democrats' electoral prospects for next year. Them standing back and watching the Republicans devour each other is the smart move politically. I think it was Jeffries who commented, "This isn't our circus, and he's not our clown." If McCarthy had offered concessions to the Democrats in return for their votes (Ukraine funding, a suspension of the debt ceiling, etc.), then maybe it becomes more defensible for them to at least vote "present" and let the Republican caucus save him themselves. However, absent any benefit to them, they were smart to do what they did.

I'm not even certain the Democrats *could* have helped McCarthy, even if they wanted to. Bipartisanship is a dirty word these days, and any perception that McCarthy was beholden to the Democrats for saving his speakership would probably doom him in the Republican caucus just as readily as what actually happened.

shadowsword87 posted...

Honestly, I never figured out why the Speaker of the House is such a big deal.

Speaker sets the agenda for the House; no bills can even come up for consideration without their say-so. They're arguably the single-most powerful officer in the country aside from the Senate Majority Leader and the President.

papercup posted...

They're either going to try to make Trump the Speaker

Very unlikely he would get the job, even if he was interested.

Democrats would be unified in opposition, which means he could lose no more than four Republican votes in order to take the speakership. There are enough Republicans in swing districts that understand that Speaker Trump would be absolutely toxic for their electoral chances to sink any speakership bid.

I think even the more conservative-yet-strategic-minded Republicans would try and steer Trump away from his, because Trump being speaker over a fractious, dysfunctional House would kill his re-election bid. There's no way Trump could wrangle the current Republican caucus AND negotiate deals with the Democratic senate to pass bills (I'm honestly not sure there's anyone who can), so taking up the Speaker's gavel right now is political suicide.

Darth_CiD posted...

Everyone i know who spent 4-6 years at college/university earn less than me who barely passed high school, except they have a bunch of debt as well.

The 'go to higher education to earn more money' meme is only true for a small percentage of fields and on average, i bet 4-6 years of real work experience and networking gives people better prospects.

The statistical analysis on high school grads vs. university grads is pretty unambiguous that a person with a post-secondary education is much more likely to earn more money than a person without. In the US, the Social Security Administration found that the benefits of a university level degree, on average, amount to between $600,000 and $1.5 million over the course of a career ($450,000 and $655,000 when correcting for socio-demographic variables).

Source: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research-summaries/education-earnings.html

Admittedly, this is based on 2004 data, so it's a little out of date, but those findings have been repeated in other analysis. The 2017 Canadian census, for instance, showed that those who had at least a bachelor's degree earned, on average, 20% (for men) to 40% (for women) more than a high school graduate.

Source: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016024/98-200-x2016024-eng.cfm

Obviously, yes, your earning power will depend on your field - someone who graduates with a bachelor's of engineering or an M.D. is going to be pulling in a lot more money on average than someone with a degree in art history. And yes, someone with no post-secondary education can still make it big if they have the correct skillset and opportunity, but on the aggregate a degree is still a net positive in the majority of cases.

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Metalsonic66 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/2/3/AAFUswAAE4mn.jpg

Canadian comedy icon Steve Smith, better known as Red Green, talked about this once. He's so closely associated with his look on The Red Green Show (fishing hat, red and green flannel shirt, tan slacks with suspenders) that he never had to disguise himself when going out. He could literally have dinner down the street from a venue before a show, surrounded by people who were also talking about going to the show, and no one would recognize him.

Lokarin posted...

I was discussing Fzero clones on the gamedev forum and apparently fzero GX does something unique that other similar racers don't... you can boost infinitely, ya. there's no speed cap on boosting if you can maintain energy.

Boosting has a cooldown, though - unless there's some trick of the physics I don't know about it, you can't just generate infinite speed via boosting, even if you cheated to give yourself infinite health.

Lokarin posted...

if your interest rate on debt is lower than the rate of inflation... isn't having massive debt actually making you money?

We talking personal debt or sovereign debt?

Either way, debt can absolutely make you money; it depends on what you spend it on. If you take out a loan to go on an all-expenses paid trip to the Bahamas that you otherwise wouldn't be able to afford, that's bad debt and you'll wind up more financially screwed afterwards. If you instead take out a loan to go to university and upgrade your credentials so you can get a higher-paying job, the increase in your earning power could (potentially significantly) outstrip the costs of financing the loan, which means you're overall making money on the deal.