arch_8ngel

I don't think you are correct about the student debt forgiveness issue being as clearly in the self-interest of the majority as you believe. (though that is the one of the two issue you mention that the president could handle independently) And we have some time for the healthcare legislation issue to get sorted out -- though this is not an issue that the president has substantial control over, beyond the ability to veto legislation. That issue is much more about the Senate and House than it is about which democrat was elected president. And overriding both issues you mention -- the clear rational self interest that was the overriding factor in the 2020 election was the removal of Trump and his lackeys. Nobody gets everything they want -- and if it was going to be no-contest to beat Trump, then yes, there were probably quite a few people that voted for Biden that would have been happier with Sanders. But it was a real risk whether anyone other than a fairly moderate democrat would have the national ability to beat Trump decisively. And since it is directly knowable that Trump wouldn't do fuck-all on either issue you mention, people had to decide on the least-bad strategy.

You don't agree with criticism of Willie? To me, Willie is pretty much the only thing that holds this movie back from being neck-and-neck with Raiders of the Lost Ark. She is Temple of Doom's version of the awful jarring soundtrack in Ladyhawke.

The tragic irony of poor white rural Americans continuing to vote against their rational self interest

tickers are unique -- so if you search "CCI ticker" you're get the right company (or on a site like Yahoo Finance just type in the ticker) In this case it is Crown Castle International -- they are cell phone towers, primarily. Similar to AMT (American Tower) It is a sort of real estate play rolled in with a utilities play.

Just temper your expectations of what a "high dividend" looks like, in practice, when you're talking about a sustainable dividend with a dividend aristocrat that has a strong history of raising dividends while the stock price hopefully appreciates. PSEC is a closed-end-fund which usually have higher-than-typical dividends (like how REITs will generally have higher than typical dividends) -- but those higher dividends aren't without other potential consequences.

Be careful and be sure to look at the total returns on these guys. (aside from trends in price -- giving some real thought to the risk that they cut the dividend) Dividends from good companies are a useful tool, IMO, but chasing "highest dividends" is a potential recipe for pain when you end up with less-than-stellar total returns.

I'll give it a solid 7. It would have been a better movie with a less grating female costar. And it would have had a better legacy if it had better opened the door for a broader range of "serial adventure" out of Indiana Jones than a primary focus on Judeo-Christian artifacts and Nazis. (part of what made the PS2 / GC era Indiana Jones video game so great, IMO, was capturing that world traveler adventure vibe with something more mysterious than thoroughly tread Judeo-Christian artifacts) All that said -- it is a great adventure movie with a good range of settings and an imaginative enough villain to shape pop culture for a long time.

PalmOS was a great reboot of that genre. Redshift keeps their games from that era updated in Android.

Curse of the Catacombs was a fun fantasy spin on Wolf3D (sort of like what Hexen was to Doom). For Wolfenstein 3D -- I remember being amazed when I went to someone's house in middle school and found out that they actually had the full version of the game and not just the shareware.

If she's actually getting people to pay for non-nude Onlyfans, I'm impressed.

My point is this -- you can achieve the short-term stimulus of personal cashflow by simply freezing or eliminating the interest and penalties that have accrued and then giving people indefinite forbearance while they sort out the systemic fixes. At that point, the cashflow improves (for the moment) 1:1 with total debt relief, and it wouldn't be accruing interest either. Give people financial breathing room without dumping gasoline onto the fire of the culture war.

I don't know, man... that ad might have seeded an inclination to actually drink Budweiser at some point. I'd say that constitutes material harm.

It's the internet -- EVERYWHERE is a "place where a child can see it". Does Youtube have age ratings on their videos? I know they at least have a "kids" content category which this could easily avoid.

Tax returns won't tell you that, though.

It has barely even been a "correction" in tech stocks at this point.

My main gripe is just with your use of "as intended". Unless you know the development team, you don't know what was "intended" -- you only know the game "as released". And unless you are playing on the same development equipment they used, you aren't even seeing the same color settings, sharpness, and screen size that they had (again, whether they "intended" anything in that regard, or not). We are talking about commercial products that were subject to a lot of practical limitations (time/money, and technical) that make an attempt to capture what some designer would have liked for the game to be, if it could have been done the way they wanted at all.

Devs working around the limitations of the hardware and the display technology doesn't necessarily mean that it "looks the best it could" on that hardware. And seriously -- there was SO MUCH VARIATION in the display quality of TV's from that era, and the question of RF vs RCA, etc... plenty of games looked horrible when played the way a lot of people had their systems configured back then (multiple RF switches, whether you had incoming signal noise on both CH3 and CH4, whether the TV itself was a piece of junk or something nice like a Trinitron)

Not sure I agree with your here, since you're fabricating a bit of a straw man for what the game designers "intended". They were just guys doing the best they could with the time and tools they had at the time, for use on the hardware of the day (which itself, was quite varied -- as there were some absolutely shit-image-quality screens that were prevalent in the 80's and 90's) "Look and play best" is squarely in the eye of the beholder and is not objectively anchored in whatever your personal original play experience was.

Sure, I think that is a bad attitude to spread around. But I would still categorize it as basic electronics repair, assuming you are talking about working from a "cap kit" (and not needing to diagnose it and source the caps yourself)

Soldering is a hell of a lot closer to restringing your guitar than it is to repairing your car I'll grant that not everyone has the eyesight or fine motor skills to do it, though. But I can also tell that a lot of people scare themselves away from it, thinking they're going to break something, when the simple reality is that the equipment is way more heat-tolerant than people fear and the heat from the soldering iron doesn't really extend that far from the solder point that you're working on actively.

What is your threshold for a "basic repair"? Using a soldering iron is a fairly basic skill. And when it comes to actual "electronics compare", replacing capacitors is pretty darn basic if you're dealing with circuit board technology from the 80's or early 90's. (i.e. through-hole parts, single layer boards, lots of real estate to work with) Determining what a recap requires, from scratch, is certainly not basic -- but for a popular monitor or device, that has a "cap kit" available, they make it straightforward. Likening having a $20 soldering iron and supplies, and taking an hour to learn a skill, is nowhere in the league of someone having what they need in their garage to do car repairs...

You sound like someone that is blissfully unaware of Outlander. Sex definitely sells to women -- it just has to be packaged differently. (but yes, joking aside, testosterone is a hell of a drug)

Ah, was reading "position" as a stock position given the context of the rest of the discussion

Since you seem to be saying two different thing, which of these statements is actually true?

The question isn't whether student loan holders are "more deserving" than the banks/lenders were back during the GFC. And the past bail-outs of ANY type are the definition of "sunk cost". They fundamentally have no bearing on whether a different/new bailout TODAY is a good idea. What matters is in the present circumstances: 1) is this type of bailout going to be widely perceived as "FAIR" to the taxpayers that are backstopping it (and to future generations of taxpayers that will also be paying for it) 2) is this type of bailout NECESSARRY in the form presented, or are there potentially comparably effective means of achieving the same short-term goals (i.e. you can EASILY get the same short-term bump by suspending/eliminating interest and letting borrowers pause payments without wiping out the debt itself) 3) is this a band-aid, or are there meaningful structural improvements that will go along with this to prevent the same problem from existing in 5 or 10 years time. Absolutely NONE of what matters TODAY is whether the bank bailouts of the GFC were a good idea, or not. EDIT: and no "on morals", I don't think that Californication is "correct". There IS a clear "moral" justification for the government knocking down interest on the debt and eliminating penalties associated with gaps in payment. There IS NOT a clear "moral" justification for wiping out principal that borrowers actually spent to their own benefit with an agreement to repay.