I assume it still checks for real versus fake traffic
general
Monday, August 17, 2026
removing that would be even more insane
Even if it's just to inflate views, I hope they still track "start playing a video and immediately click away" as a negative indicator
looks like March is when the Neo 2 launches
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2026/08/15/apple-macbook-neo-2-release-date-a19-pro-specs/
Nice, I actually suspect the pricing won't be that bad on these, even though I'm sure some people are expecting them to overcharge because "RAM"
Tuesday, August 18, 2026
>too late to bet on the Queens death
why even bother
Wednesday, August 19, 2026
If your child came to you and asked for you to sign his permission slip to have a legal harem (Canadian First Nations loophole) would you sign it?
- Yes9 votes · 90%
- No1 vote · 10%
- Yes, but it will cost them (financial extortion)0 votes · 0%
- Yes, but it will cost them (other extortion)0 votes · 0%
- No, but I would let them join my harem0 votes · 0%
10 votes Poll closed
I would not extort my kid, I would question them on what girls/men the child wanted so badly that they needed a harem for
I was going to put the polu answer in of No, I don't want to have a comically large family
but then I figured I'd need to specify what the other No was in reference to
I think this is a poll that will be funny to see if anyone votes differently from consensus
Some eskimo tribe allows polygamy
and I think the gay marriage stuff set back polygamy irronically
because the push for legal marriage to be 1:1 religious marriage has broken the whole concept
I think alt timeline where the mormons were pushing for opening up marriage laws more to allow what they want, we would have gotten gay marriage anyways
we being the US
rest of the world would have still done gay marriage probably
I hate the 2000s era talking point, but honestly legal "marriage" makes no sense other than it being useful in divorce proceedings
the original gay marriage concession of any 2+ people being able to set up a "union" which bound them together and would provide them all joint legal right over their shared assets
is way more clear than tying it to marriage, a concept of religion for most people, and if not than at least a strong moral/social construct
It's the same thing people are doing now anyway, I feel like everyone earning above minimum wage sets up a personal LLC to manage their assets at this point, which tends to envelope their family anyway
I do not think everyone earning above minimum wage sets up a personal LLC spooky
I would suspect, in fact, that only a minority of people do that
if you have more than a $100k net worth, you should be
appak
you should, but I doubt most people are doing that
now, 100k net worth is 10% of the population
so not "most people"
I would guess its probably like, 1% of people with 100k+ new worth spooky
with the percentage skewing higher the higher your net worth is
So, I'm not arguing out of my ass here, but most financial advisors (which I feel like most people talk to once they have 100k, maybe 250k is a more reasonable cutoff idk) now open by suggesting you set up an LLC, and have that own everything in your name
it protects your privacy and potential liability, for essentially zero cost
and that's before you play any tax shielding games
I think most people who have 100k net worth are not talking to a financial advisor, 250k maybe, but I think if you changed it from net worth to "money you have, not including housing/car/etc" then the percent might become most people
most peoples net worth is going to be their house
Net worth to me is investments + car + house
which I think 100k is ~10% of the population
you aren't wrong Pika btw
the people who have a house, and thats it
are a group too
you should (probably) still do it, for the privacy and liability protections, but you're probably not paying too much attention to finances if you're in that group
Also I think if you remove all people above 65 from the list, along with houses, the percentage becomes vanishingly small for net worth above 100k
Which you should remove boomers, because they skew every single statistic like this
maybe I'm completely wrong about it being 10%, that feels right just thinking bell curve
No, AI tells me I'm right
it's actually a little higher, depending where you cut it off
I personally don't know anyone below 65 who has a net worth above 100k excluding house and car
so maybe my bias is in the opposite direction
you're in academia though
ik that's not everyone you know
I was moreso thinking family, friends of family, etc
I think if anything my university friends are doing better than them
I think I am biased too far in one direction, and I think you are probably biased too far in the other extreme because of the place you live/people you are around
real answer is certainly more in the middle
Replying to Phijkchu_Pikachu #klombak I think I am biased too far in one direction, and I think you are probably biased too far in the other extreme because of the place you live/people you are around
Can I be biased in the third direction?
Yes tiny, you can be biased in the 3rd direction
I thought an LLC was just for making a company and if it goes bankrupt you won't lose your house
If your not starting an actual business why make an llc?
There are a lot of reasons, that spooky would be better at explaining
I don't have one because technically speaking, I have functionally zero net worth and it would make zero sense to bother