213374U

Yeah. I can very much say that you don't need that much money, with 100% certainty. You may want it, you may feel entitled to it, you may even think you deserve it. But need? No, you don't need it, and the proof is hundreds of millions of your fellow countrymen survive with far less than that. It's also unsurprising that it always comes down to assuming envy. You probably also assume laziness, right? Perhaps consider that, for others, material riches may not hold anywhere near as much appeal as they do to you.

So the complaint is that corrupted crooks in government will pocket the money? I can understand the concern. Would you be more open to tax exemptions on inheritance in the case of donations to non-profits? Say... starting at 85% of the estate's worth beyond the first million.

It's got to be the worst possible time to let it be known that they may be considering even a slight shift to the games-as-a-service approach. The cheap shot at EA was too easy, though.

Y'all are just jelly!

The real irony here is that there's always working class people willing to defend the exploitative nature of labor commodification in capitalism, because they are convinced that they will enter the 4% that KP referenced earlier. (except for Sharp_one who, as you can tell by his deep economic insight, is a self-made S&P 500 founder and CEO and of whose success we're all just jealous) As for the gif Hurl posted, I have only one thing to say, buddy: Kark Marx was the leader of the rebel alliance????? So it really WAS Nazi's vs communists after all! It's enough to make you head for the Outer Rim! The fight to overthrow the bourgeoisie isn't confined to this galaxy! Workers of the universe, unite!

Just beat Arkham Origins. Enjoyed it enough to push myself to complete all trees in the Dark Knight system, when I typically never bother with that sort of thing. Some of the challenges were fun to beat, some were barely deserving of the name, and some would have me pulling my hair... good thing my head is shaved. The only thing I missed from previous games is Mark Hamill, and while the music was serviceable, it was nowhere near as good as City's. The "open world" still feels pretty empty. On to Arkham Knight.

Anyway, Top US general says he would resist illegal nuclear strike order from Donald Trump It would be interesting if someone went into detail and laid out exactly what makes a nuclear strike legal. And even if it's not, I'm thinking that any official openly refusing an order would be kissing their career goodbye.

The real irony here is that there's always working class people willing to defend the exploitative nature of labor commodification in capitalism, because they are convinced that they will enter the 4% that KP referenced earlier. (except for Sharp_one who, as you can tell by his deep economic insight, is a self-made S&P 500 founder and CEO and of whose success we're all just jealous) As for the gif Hurl posted, I have only one thing to say, buddy:

Do you have any idea how much it costs to maintain a private jet in airworthy condition? Even with tax breaks, $1M is nothing! Think of all the jobs in the aerospace industry you'd destroy!

IIRC Star Trek Online used a similar setup. Pretty unobtrusive. I don't know about this "doom of the industry", but the recurrent consumer spending model is devised to secure not just bigger profits, but an even bigger share of the market for those companies, and so is bad news for medium-sized and smaller devs.

Even assuming that you had the capital to get your life in the wilds started, growing your own food, building your own house etc. means you're subject to regulations and most likely taxation (on property at the very least). And to pay taxes you need money, and to get money if you have no passive income, you have to work for someone else or sell your own produce. Either way, you have to pay taxes. And so we are back to square one. Not to mention the eventual but certain need for medicine, which is an essential rather than a comfort. There is simply no way not to participate in the economy since the only territory on Earth that isn't subject to national sovereignty is Antarctica (and it's illegal to settle there anyway). Unless potentially being an outlaw doesn't matter to you, but if so, you're better off straight up robbing banks. Less complicated. At any rate, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that if one thinks that the system is by design unfair for a majority of participants, they should get out and try to eke out a Stone Age living off the grid. The reasonable course of action is, evidently, to reform the system.

It means exactly that, to people uninterested in them. For someone constantly dismissing anything resembling objective arguments with regards to quality, it's funny how adamantly you defend a bunch of fluff as constituting "major advantages". Almost as funny as your systematic tilting at the "GOG loyalist" windmills. Steam is popular because of the same reason Windows is.

Right. Sorry if that came across as patronizing. It's just that I can't help but smirk when this topic is discussed. I honestly cannot ascribe any values to men that should be regarded as more valuable than they would be for women, in a context where women are fully capable of earning their own keep... or at least as capable as men.

Nah. At GD. I just ramble a lot, so your confusion is understandable.

A broken clock is also right twice a day. I'm really happy for you, but the "rags to riches" idea has been proven to be mostly a (rather useful) myth.

What is so hard to understand about the fact that jobs demand is strongly inelastic? You cannot survive without income, and if you have no capital, you cannot have an income without work. So you're not "free" to choose whether to sell your labor or not. You must sell it, at whatever price the market is willing to pay for it.

I have to wonder why you're even wasting your time pondering this question. Just do your thing. Is it manly? Is it womanly? Who cares. From what little I know about you, you're -wisely- well past the point where you give two ****s about attracting women in this fashion, so it's a completely useless spook from which you should free yourself. You hit the nail on the head: it's about conforming to an ideal, in this case, exploited to sell you on John Wayne's (& co.) stuff. Traditionally, masculinity has been strongly associated with aggression, physical or otherwise. It is what it is. In this day and age, anything even remotely referencing aggression is deemed "toxic", and by association, so is old skool masculinity. No doubt masculinity will be soon redefined, into something every man who prizes himself must learn to conform to.

To crush your enemies. See them driven before you. And to hear the lamentations of their women.

Cool story bro. Maybe once you're done sucking yourself off, you can explain what any of that has to do with your suggestion that anyone who doesn't fancy working for others, is free to become self-employed.

Nah. Your suggestion amounts to "if people aren't happy with their lives, they can eat a bullet, see what they prefer". Which, if memory serves, is something you've actually encouraged before. But since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: generally, people have no choice but work for someone else because they lack the capital to set up a business that, owing to how economies of scale work, will allow them to break even, and sustain themselves. Indeed, that's the only difference between an owner and a worker: one has capital, the other does not.

Gee, why didn't I think of that? I just mean the formatting isn't that bad, and reading it is straightforward. Different strokes, I guess. To me it completely breaks the flow of reading by randomly breaking up the text into paragraphs that aren't immediately adjacent. It's great at preventing diagonal reading, too.

Not so much to do with profit as with the breakeven point. I'd expect a self-proclaimed "entrepreneur" to have a better grasp on micro.

Gee, why didn't I think of that?

Because he gives you 100% of tools, 100% of materials, 100% of work space, 100% of salary etc. KP: My employer takes away most of what I produceSharp one: But the rest he lets you keep, so be grateful. As for what he keeps, he uses it in away that will allow him to take away more from you while letting you keep less. Just ask the McDonalds employees how those new touch screens worked out for them. You can always be a freelancer, pay for your own tools, your own materials, find a buyer, keep a schedule, deal with the customers and after sale service, deal with bookkeeping etc. Then calculate which is more profitable for you. It is that simple. Sitting and complaining "he took my profits...that I made on his materials, his tools, after he trained me" will not solve your problems. Be your own captain today! Economies of scale would like a word with you.

Thanks! I keep forgetting this exists You can't take the rpg out of HBS. Nice post but people should really stop posting essays on Twatter. It's annoying. I'm sure the guy had some interesting things to say, but I simply can't stand the formatting. Sorry, dev-dude. I'd really like to read it too -- he worked on the SWTOR F2P transition. He even has a link to his personal blog... but apparently cba to post this there. I feel old.