$1700/yr is 12 hours of gaming each day at $0.40/hr, which is more than the $0.24 you'd actually be paying. Nobody gaming that much would otherwise be spending $100/yr on games in any case.

This is a very stupid thing for the industry, but your numbers are hyperbolic and anti-useful.

If you refer to the article, it's price tiering. You would be consistently paying $0.24.

"This would drive up costs to customers" is always fun when it talks about a human component of the cost, because it's pretty transparently saying they're currently relying on worker exploitation.

Only if you're a shallow person who evaluates the partners of your friends solely on their sex appeal.

Thinking like this is telling on yourself.

"The $45m he spent to fight this would've allowed us to renovate this school. The $12b he'd owe would let us renovate 100 schools. Or get X thousand of the homeless off the streets. Or fixed 10 million potholes."

Make his name responsible for those things not happening.

I mean... in fairness to Google, wouldn't this be an email address that has almost exclusively emailed a massive chunk of users all at once, without obvious connection, and with exactly identical content? The URL it's sent from doesn't resolve to a webpage, and isn't on the same domain I found attached to other information/copies of the settlement.

I hate when these sorts of statistics point to "the top 10%" as the problem based on numbers like this. It's simply much less broad than that. Of all wealth, the top 0.1% holds 14.5%. The next 0.9% holds 17.3%. The bottom 50% hold only 2.5%. The top 1% of households hold 12.72x as much wealth as the bottom 50%. And, notably, the bottom 10% of households have less than $1000 in net worth. The bottom 8% of people have $0 or less.

A household which is at the 90th percentile for Net Worth has a net worth of roughly $2,000,000, including equity in their home. You get to the 95th percentile before you double that to $4M. The 90th percentile has 1000x higher net worth than someone with $2,000 to their name, which seems obscenely unfair when described in that way. However, a net worth of $2,000,000 would provide a retiree a mostly-safe withdrawal rate (4% or $80,000) of around the median income of ~$84,000. (This doesn't actually check out since it includes equity in the home, but as a simplification.) Retirees have access to social security and tax-advantaged accounts and the like, but someone who ends up with a net worth of $2M could live only a median lifestyle without working.

Is a net worth of $2,000,000 a very large number and a large chunk of wealth? Of course it is. But it's not like, obscene wealth. If I gave a random American $2M it would change their lives profoundly, but the people who have a net worth of $2M aren't the ones who are ruining our lives. They're just not.

The top 0.1% hold 14.5% of the wealth. The top 1% hold 31.8%. The bottom 10% hold less than 0%. That's the ball game.

Disclaimer: I have not rigorously cited my sources, nor verified all my figuring. However, most of this is pulled from the Fed data linked in the article. Other stuff is pulled from sources which cite the same, though I've not run a rigorous analysis of the maths. My work should not be cited as correct, it is intended to be illustrative. That said, I'll happily remedy any errors that others might notice!

I mean, I think the reasons that automated systems should allow for overrides by human operators should be pretty apparent.

Pretty much. Leave sharing policies are usually set up such that in some sort of extraordinary medical circumstance, employees can transfer paid leave to one another.

The idea is sorta that if a loved one has a major medical emergency and needs a lot of care for 3 months, other employees can transfer paid leave to help cover gaps. This makes sense as a way to cover edge cases in extreme circumstances, but "is having a child" definitely isn't such a case.

Agents killed someone they are entirely happy to have killed. As far as ICE is concerned, this was a job well done.

That's cool, but I do that too. So don't think you're special, ants!

A safe withdrawal rate on funds invested is usually 3-4%, not 6%.

Not that $300k isn't more than sufficient for a high quality lifestyle. Your point is more than valid.

Something other posters have overlooked here is that one life is guaranteed to be saved if you pull the lever. There are 5 tracks in the image, but the ratios use quarters. If you pull the lever, you have saved one life. You have a 75% chance that you have saved one life with no consequences. You have a 25% chance of killing a net of 4 people. By that method, your expected number of kills is 1, no matter your choice.

However, I really think I look at it more on the chance of good outcomes, personally. If I pull the lever I have a 75% chance of saving everyone, and only a 25% chance of bad outcomes. I can live with that choice. I can live with the decision to take action, because to not take action is still choice.

I mean, I have to imagine baiting people into attacking him is pretty much part of the whole charade, no?

A quick Google shows that there's no real evidence of involvement. It seems like Epstein might've been trying to arrange for her to be present at a dinner with Gates, like as in him wanting Gates to get her there? Uncertain. I wasn't particularly rigorous though. I'm not claiming to have strong context.

I'd question whether they're setting up for a false flag but I think the administration is just that fucking stupid.

That's him saying so as part of the Dissenting minority. He was outvoted by the rest of Trump's sycophants.

Trump initially indicated that he wanted to build a ballroom, but that none of the East Wing would've been touched. As with any significant government building, there's a good amount of history and significance to the East wing. It's also where guests would enter and hosted the First Lady's office/staff.

Trump then proceeded to ignore the standard rules/requirements for making changes to the building, which he doesn't have unilateral authority to do. He leveled the East Wing, and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the project during a government shutdown, money which was essentially pilfered from other allocations IIRC.

Despite various attempts to check his illegal construction efforts, he has continued unabated. Some of the funding has also come from "private donors" which has pretty transparently been influence bribery from important figures and CEOs and stuff.

There's been a lot to it over time, but that's some of the broad strokes.

that the review process “has been activated,” and that the graduate instructor was placed on administrative leave “to ensure fairness.”

In pursuit of fairness, I think it's reasonable to label the Oklahoma University a bigot-friendly institution. Just while the investigation is ongoing, you understand. Certainly this shouldn't be construed as punitive.

A lot of these calculations solve this by using a lower expected growth rate, to offset the expected inflation. It lets you have the more simple conversations in today's currency values, which are easier to reason about.

That's not the case in this particular example, and you've correctly identified a deficiency. I raise the point for the benefit of any curious readers who look into other conversations on the topic.