For me personally, yeah, it wouldn’t work. As others noted, it needs to be reciprocal attraction for sex to really feel good / get you that endorphin hit. Based on the number of replies noting it, it seems fair to say that men’s needs aren’t just a matter having an orgasm.
Prolly better off looking for an asexual guy to partner with.
For years I used to do Soylent for a bunch of meals per week. I stopped when there was a postal strike / delivery issues for it in Canada, and with the US’s recent trends I haven’t really tried to renew subscriptions to it on “fuck you for saying 51st state” grounds, but it was a pretty good product.
The powder option is about $60 for 35 meals, about $2 per meal. Broadly provides about 1/4 daily nutrition per meal, 1/4 daily calories per meal (they assume 4 meals per day if I remember right). It’s also delivered to your door, so no fussing/time spent with grocery shopping. And practically no dishes/cleanup or prep time.
It’s not too ‘fun’, in that all meals basically taste the same. But it’s simple, consistent, scientifically nutritionally balanced.
So to the OPs broader point, you’re still participating in the broader financial system/market – the financial system doesn’t “just” refer to items placed on the stock market, it includes any money stored in a financial institution, and ultimately even ‘money’ itself. The OPs position sounds a lot more like a libertarian / anarchist take, stating that all ‘money’ is essentially a bubble with imaginary value. I imagine this sort of mindset is increasingly on the minds of people, Americans in particular, as international trade starts to flounder – the value of the US dollar is, in some circles, starting to cause concern. I think there was a news piece from one of their central bankers a couple days ago, commenting that the value of the American dollar is down 10% against other currencies this year, so if your net worth hasn’t gone up by 11% you’ve taken a loss. Currency values are arguably based on difficult to quantify things – it can be viewed as bubble-like at a fairly fundamental level.
For the RRSP item, typically banks/CUs provide parent accounts and sub accounts, in my experience. So, for example, you can have an RRSP account at a CU which has just cash sitting in it, or that RRSP can have a sub-account Term deposit where the cash is locked in for 5 years and earns 2-4% per annum in interest (essentially just keeping up with inflation) – or an RRSP parent account with a trading sub account. Terms have lower return than the market, in general, but less risk. I’ve personally tended to split my savings between longer Terms in the RRSP for long term retirement needs, shorter more numerous Term Deposits in non-RRSPs that I can cash in for emergencies (taking a small hit if I break the term early), and a Market investment account I handle through my TFSA for now – not really sure if that’s a good approach, but it spreads the risk profiles around, and ensures that I have a baseline of emergency funds available.
In terms of interest rates / fees, if money is locked in for a longer period FIs generally don’t charge fees, and instead you earn a higher interest rate. The BMO Investonline example, I would guess, is a result of that money getting booked differently in terms of their ability to leverage it for lending, and/or it’s shunted over to a BMO subsidiary entity setup to specifically handle market actions, which is subject to different standards/fee structures. I’ve worked at banks/CUs that did that sort of thing for departments like their auto-leasing programs – which was fascinating, as the CU actually had policies in place not to lease cars to their regular financial members, because they were totally fleecing the auto side and knew it (which was deemed ‘ok’, so long as those people aren’t members/can’t vote in elections). There were also likely larger regulatory hurdles if they were to try and cross sell that sort of product.
But the long and short of all this, is basically just … if you’re storing a pile of money in a bank/CU, stick it in a term deposit so that it at least keeps up with inflation / earns you interest, rather than costs you in fees. As an added benefit, moving those funds into a non-demand account makes them a lot more difficult for scammers to get at – because the money isn’t available “on demand”.
Though again, if I’ve interpreted the Ops sentiment correctly, none of this matters from their POV, as it’s all just a house of cards.
Eh? Term deposits/GIC savings vehicles generally just generate interest for the depositor, without fees involved. Demand accounts like chequing accounts / payment oriented accounts, will sometimes have a fee, which will typically get waived if the amount in that account exceeds a certain value (typically around $1000-1500). Been that way forever at CUs. It’s generally because they can use that capital to fund loans, more confidently, if the money’s locked in to a term deposit for a set period – in a simple small CU setup, they’re essentially taking all those deposits, pooling them together to help people buy homes, and charging the borrowers enough to pay both the deposit interest and the CUs operating costs. There’s very little ‘risk’, given that any loan is secured by property, with a loan to value ratio of around 75-80% at the high end – something regulators seem oblivious to at times in Canada, as many cripple industry without cause. They’re actively working to kill small CUs, while also whining federally about a lack of financial industry competition.
But back on topic, I think the posters comment is more trying to imply that all assets/money is a bubble. I’m not really sure why. But whether you have money in property/assets, or money sitting in an account, it’s part of “the entire financial system” that the poster says is a giant bubble.
The meals and ingredients weren’t as good as other services, but it was generally ok. Fresh Prep I found to be a bit more consistent, and the meals tastier.
Personally, assuming its the local language, I’m fine with the idea.
People who are multilingual don’t always seem to get how it looks/feels for monolingual people – but it’s a way of excluding them from participating in whatever the conversation is. I think back to a camping trip described by an X with her friends, where in most of the group spoke english and chinese – except my X, who only spoke english. Because one or two in the group were more fluent in Chinese, for most of the weekend the vast majority of conversation was in Chinese, which really drove home how isolating / alienating it can be to be the person left out. You’re basically being pre-excluded from a conversation, just to make it easier for communication with someone else – your basic participation is less important than the other person’s ease of communication. My X had no concern about them “talkin bout her behind her back” or anything, they were all friends, but she finally understood how it comes across.
While the majority of the work force may speak another language, the “main” language in a country is to me, meant to serve as a default for business. If I were multilingual, working in a foreign non-english country, I’d expect any business I worked for to require me to use their local language. Even more, when it comes to supervisors/team leads, hearing the conversations can also help you target potential issues – like if you overhear a team member teaching something incorrectly. So there’s a potential business liability type reason to make sure that all team members, especially oversight, can understand what’s getting said if it pertains to the business.
Eye glasses started showing up around 1300 AD. Implies the basic tech / processes required to make them is relatively simple, given that they’ve been around in some form ever since the middle ages. Granted, they wouldn’t be as sophisticated as they are today, and many people with very niche issues would suffer.
Anything more modern, requiring microchips or heavily integrated international supply chains would go poof. Personally, I’d worry about dental and medical stuff we diagnose with x-rays. Like it’s not too uncommon for people to have a root canal these days… but it didn’t become a more ‘common’ thing until around the 1800-1900 period. Hell, getting your wisdom teeth pulled in a post-event world would likely suck some serious ass.
So I understand the seeming disconnect between who he is and what they attest to value, and why it’s so confusing. I wouldn’t pretend to know specifically why he has decent support amongst that demographic.
But at the same time, whatever the reason is, even if it’s straight-up racist “I wanna vote for the white power guy”, we don’t tend to see the same sort of questions being asked about minority politicians and their supporters amongst their own demographic. Like my city here in Canada elected a minority race mayor, and the minority folks who made of the bulk of his rally supporters and voters, when interviewed openly said stuff like “finally we’re going to get treated better and he’ll prioritize our issues”. Minority candidates benefit from racist viewpoints all the time, amongst the minority community – racism is only seemingly considered a problem when it’s impeding a minority.
If we accept that sort of sentiment from a minority group individual as a reasonable reason to support a candidate, then it’s equally as reasonable a justification for the white supremacists to support Trump, no?
Infinite dollars… mass produced eco sustainable housing options using primarily locally sourced resources and talent. Something like putting together a ‘franchise’ of prefab home mfg centres that I could deploy into a community/future community site, to build houses for that area. If I didn’t have infinite dollars, I’d aim to sell them in a more co-operative model mindset, where profit is not the driving force – aiming to basically balance operating expense and income so that net the business makes about 2%-4% per annum.
By eco sustainable, I’d aim to have them be off-grid oriented, with solar panels and storage batteries by default. Heat pump ready. Made of materials that are less prone to burning (likely metal outer envelope, but I’d trust the engineers). Designed for easy maintenance of key components like water lines. Bathrooms that can convert into hang-drying spaces for laundry, as well as intended out-door spaces for laundry and either a small garden area or a greenhouse module that people could add on. Kitchens designed with dish drying racks to float above sink areas for easier cleanup. Drains in the main floor area of bathrooms to allow for quick rinsing of that area when needed, and to function as drainage overflow protection. Mostly single floor to make earthquake resilience easier as well as things like roof maintenance cheaper… Any multi-story/multi-unit setup would aim for the same general goals. Likely handle designs similarly to current prefab shops, where there’s a handful of premade ones to pick from.
Political leaders / rich people are goose-stepping around in public, rich people are having private jet fuck parties in Venice as they burn the ecosystem to the ground, “climate leaders” like Suzuki are living high-polluting lifestyles, “climate celebs” like DiCaprio are equally depraved and two-faced, “popular” celebs like the Kardashians and Taylor are well known for taking incredibly wasteful luxury private jet trips. They all likely generate more pollution in a week than I will in my entire lifetime, and the public praises these sorts from all sides of the spectrum.
I vote green (in Canada), doesn’t matter. I end up with an NDP government provincially (left leaning party), doesn’t matter. No political party is willing to take drastic steps on this front. Even these nation building projects Carney’s on about here in Canada, are just him suppressing Canadians’ rights so that US companies can exfiltrate resources like Oil - and he was the more ‘progressive’ pick compared to the other potential leading party.
Like I said, I ain’t gonna be ashamed of bein lazy in my recycling. My personal climate footprint is tinier than most, and far smaller than those people. Even if I get that plastic straw it’s still nothing compared to any of them.
Least I’m not stupid enough to think that I’d motivate someone on the internet by insulting them. So I must have at least one wrinkle in there somewhere ;p
Yes, kids would potentially be a motivator. We can see how well they motivate those tech ceos to focus on climate change issues, with their tech fascist eugenics-like breeding programs producing numerous spawn. That telegram dude with like 100 kids must be the most Eco-conscious guy on the planet.
Because I have zero motivation to do so at this point.
You do you. For my part, honestly, even going over board on recycling is off the table. I’ll separate bottles and stuff, but spending excessive time doing stuff like collecting grease to put in compost bins feels pointless and meaningless – why would I put myself out, spend a buncha time doing that kinda stuff, while rich people are buying up Venice to have a Private Jet orgy, and a ton of media hypes it up as though it’s awesome / they have no fall out from it? I have more respect for my own mental health than to internalise the guilt of it all, when every rich person out there is happily burning everything to the ground, and the majority of the poors are cheering them on for doing it.
Like I said in another post, even “Climate leaders” like David Suzuki owns like 4-5 houses, and jets between them for shits and giggles. It’s all a joke, you may as well not punish yourself over it if you can’t be fucked to do some of the small shit.
Yeah, cruise lines opening back up and returning to business as usual after COVID, basically made me stop paying attention to a lot of this individual-targeted climate change stuff. That was a perfect and fairly natural way to end that high pollution luxury oriented industry, but everyone basically said “boomers still like cruising, so fuck the planet”.
If boomers and rich people can continue to pollute at incredible rates, just give me my stupid plastic straw back. At least that way I can drink a full mlikshake before my straw turns into paper mache, while I watch the world burn.
Yeah – agreed. I tried watching “The Magicians” because it was highly recommended. No CIS white male characters in the show really. They had a white bisexual guy who spent a lot of time sleeping with gay dudes. Wasn’t much of an issue / commented on for the first few seasons, and it was ‘ok’ viewing, if sorta stupid. But then in season 3 and 4 they were super heavy handed in breaking the fourth wall and saying cis white guys who identified with just that one bisexual white guy character were being racist/sexist for not looking at other characters, in part because that character gets killed off in season 4.
Why they thought that their cis white guy audience was going to identify with a bi-sexual neuro-divergent sort, one who’d spent like an entire (time loopy) life time with his gay lover, I’m not sure. But the heavy handed 4th wall breaking to talk-down to that audience demographic did end up making me not bother with seasons 5.
… Honestly, this isn’t too surprising with how saturated the media is with minority groups. Almost every show I see on various streaming products ends up having heavy LGBTQ+ plots rammed in, trans characters showin up, always a multicultural combo of characters and fewer and fewer generic CIS white people. When the media is constantly blasting you with minorities and minority issues, in a highly biased way, it’s totally not surprising at all that people would start thinking they’re a way bigger slice of the population.
Like someone once pointed out that there were more airplane pilots in North America than trans people. So imagine if every TV show you watched, suddenly had an airplane pilot show up and talk about airplanes a bunch, had whole episodes dedicated to his occupational trauma, regardless of what the main plot of the show may be. That would be more representative of the general public, than having trans people in every fucking show going on about trans trauma.
Most likely it was a move primarily about getting senior level execs at those companies into the military machine – and into the chain of command of that machine. It makes those companies ‘disclosing’ data to the military much more likely, as well as tweaking apps to aid in military operations.
Like havin the CTO of meta “in the circle”, likely gives them complete access to meta’s tracking data for any target they want, in a more efficient way than previous.
There’s no particular reason they couldn’t. Even a simple dirty bomb detonated in a high population area could wreak havoc – and any country with centrifuges can basically make one of those in no time.
Basically every sovereign state now has a very clear risk calculation supporting the development of nuclear arms and for ignoring all the UN’s attempts for international cooperation / non-proliferation. Iran was compliant, from all accounts, with the vast majority of requirements that had been set out for it – something that Israel’s nuclear program is seemingly not required to adhere to (it’s still “unofficial” that they have between 90 and 400 functional warheads).
Opening yourselves to international inspectors just gives the USA a very clear target list + floor plans. Further, not having a nuclear option means the USA will potentially attack you. Even if rules of engagement say they shouldn’t attack civilian power plant infrastructure, the USA, Israel and Russia do it without hesitation. North Korea, China, and Russia have shown that having a nuclear deterrent will keep the USA away. It’ll even make the USA suck up to you / praise you, and let you attack/invade your neighbours without the USA taking action.
What Trump and the States have done, in my view, essentially translates to destroying any semblance of international cooperation between nations (cause why bother trying to appease the EU, if the USA is gonna ignore international norms and bomb whoever they want anyway), and has made it so that every nation should now pursue weapons of mass destruction as a “deterrent”, which will no doubt lead to catastrophe in time. But there aren’t really many ways I can see it playing out otherwise.
Like that 5% NATO military spending… should prolly be every NATO country building a nuclear / WMD program of their own, unbeholden to US constraints, “just in case”.
Put effort into finding someone as a romantic / life long partner while you’re young. Be critical and aggressive in the search (ie. don’t just “be open and let things happen if they happen!”).
Most of the systems and life goals of society are tied to having two people or more in the family unit. Ideally aim for a partner that has similar economic outcomes as yourself, or at least positive ones overall, and who’s personality is tolerable / you can see yourselves staying friends indefinitely. If you’re a reclusive sort, find someone else who also values their space but is still willing to comingle finances/lives. Doing this young is important as there are more options and it’ll generally be easier to find people that ‘fit’ with your lifestyle. Finding someone close to you in age also helps to keep your life-events (such as whether to have kids, when to retire, etc) better aligned.
Everything from paying off mortgage debt, to income tax breaks, to even just having a secondary “fail safe” income stream from your partner, are really significant. Heck, with the right partner you even cut down the costs of things like Groceries (can buy in bulk = savings), chore-times, etc.
The younger you get that leverage, the better the results later on. Consider something like the time crunch many adults feel, between work, chores, sleeping, etc. If you have a solid partner, you can do something like alternate chores and workouts, so that you both maintain better overall health as you age. Eg. one partner does a workout while the other buys groceries/cooks, then the first partner does the cleanup and some light cleaning around the house while the other hits the gym. Having that sort of balance in your 20s / early 30s, will give you a better chance of maintaining your health into your 40s and 50s. There’re good reasons why single people die younger.