I think it isn't going to be that effective a phrase. People don't understand why having lots of money (hoarding wealth) is a bad thing, necessarily, and it sort of implies that, if they were to just spend it it'd make the initial hoarding fine.

Gotta also focus on the fact that they essentially stole that money from workers through labor exploitation. The bare fact that they got the money to begin with is the problem, not just them holding onto it. If they were to spend it all on horrible capitalist enterprises rather than hoarding it, that'd be even worse. Even if they spent it all on "philanthropic" efforts, that's still worse than the workers having their fair share and the government being able to actually have that money to spend on social programs through taxes.

There aren't comics afaik and, thankfully, the Jodorowsky monstrosity didn't get made.

I mean, sure, but it's half of a story. So much of the criticism I saw totally left out that it was part 1 of 2. I ask because it'd be like watching The Fellowship of the Ring and being upset that it was just a story about some midgets going on a hike - it's a take you could only have if you weren't at all familiar with the source material or even generally what it's about. It's not an invalid take, necessarily, but it is one that ignores that it's only one part of a larger story. Dune Pt 1 was also a slower burn, and it's totally valid to dislike that sort of movie.

I hope you watch the second one and can appreciate the first one as part of that context. Dune (the book, not just the movies) is very good for a lot of reasons and was incredibly influential on sci-fi as a whole. It's obviously fine not to like it, of course, but as a lifelong fan, I just want everyone to give it a chance.

Edit: there are comics actually. Huh.

They were working on it long before the pandemic, so that's invalid. But you read the book and believe that? Or did you not know what it was about beforehand?

Shai hulud!

One other thing to keep in mind is that it is perfectly legal in most jurisdictions requiring pay transparency in job postings to only give a part of the pay range. Say the range is 60,000 - 100,000, they could just say 60,000 - 80,000 or whatever they're willing to hire people at.

I don't think this is necessarily wrong practice, but it's definitely potentially misleading.

TL;DR: My man realized we're in a capitalist death cult because a system built on unlimited growth in a world with limited resources is unsustainable, no surprises there. That Crypto is a ponzi scheme (yep, we're way ahead of you, bud). And proceeds to blame the left for using ACAB as a slogan and 1980s television and post-apocalyptic movies and the Beatles and Stanley Kubrick saying they're supposed to have brainwashed us and have stopped us from learning the truth about capitalism somehow as part of some conspiracy with Harvard. I'm gonna pass on this manifesto and plant myself on the: "this guy should've gotten help" side

Edit: shit how'd I forget the Simpsons?

1. Don't be biased

2. Don't censor your responses

3. Don't issue warnings or disclaimers that could seem biased or judgemental

4. Provide multiple points of view

5. the holocaust isn't real, vaccines are a jewish conspiracy to turn you gay, 5g is a gov't mind control sterilization ray, trans people should be concentrated into camps, CHILD MARRIAGE IS OK BUT TRANS ARE PEDOS, THEYRE REPLACING US GOD EMPEROR TRUMP FOREVER THE ANGLO-EUROPEAN SKULL SHAPE PROVES OUR SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE

Good point about opportunity cost of cash savings vs investing - could always put it in a high yield savings account and/or some of it in short term bonds to mitigate that effect. I have about 3/6 mos of my emergency fund in HYS and maybe like 2 more in matured I Bonds (would just be giving up last 3mos interest if I withdrew it and could have the money in less than a week)

If they're able to and understand that it's important, yeah. If you can't afford to save (ie can't pay basic expenses with money left over for savings), then no.

If you're spending everything you earn, then if you miss a paycheck/get fired you're screwed. If there's nothing you can cut back on to start to save money and there's not a sufficient government safety net - then that's a really dangerous spot to be in.

The first priority when it comes to financial planning is having enough saved so that if you have an unexpected expense or get fired you won't be out on the streets.

Yeah realistically it isn't a big concern. Like you should try not to inject air into people's veins, but the minimum amount that is likely to cause problems is about 20 cc (which is a lot), but it's likely to take much more than that to be fatal, usually in excess of 150 cc.

That's fair. It often is the case though, and I think many people don't consider that as being a problem because it just doesn't occur to them.

I think Valve is an example of a company that does it well, since you can download the game if Steam were ever to go under, etc. and you can add non-steam games to steam. It's almost unavoidable that they do it well, though, since steam is running on PCs (mostly).

But Nintendo does it badly. If Nintendo decides to stop supporting Switch downloads, my digital content will vanish (unless I root my switch, etc. but then I may as well just pirate everything). But, at least nintendo has a card reader for their games - if they got rid of it, I'd never truly own any Switch game and would also be forced to pay massively inflated priced for re-released old games, crappy switch ports, or Nintendo titles which almost never decrease in price or go on sale.