Copernican

Try hunt showdown. It's kind of an anti battle royal game and a smart person's thinking shooter and not a twitch shooter. Civil war era so no spray and pray. 12 man servers instead of 100 so it's more tactical and strategic with our randomly dying all the time. And it's a carrot instead of a stick; no shrinking map to create a funnel of conflict, but hunting for a single boss on the map that you must kill and then attempt to extract with the trophy it drops best sound design I've experienced in a shooter.

Basically any game where crafting is a central mechanic. Why do people love repetitive boring tasks and looking at grids of items for hours on end.

No one is saying it's always a good idea. But good financial planning for life requires planning to take on debt based on what you need near term, but can plan to afford long term.

For example, if you buy a house and take out a mortgage you will have a monthly payment that might be equivalent to rent. But unlike rent, you can sell the place you live and recoup the value of the house you own because you took on debt. But on the flip side you can plan that wrong and be house poor where you can afford your mortgage but have no money for the rest of things you need to do in life.

I am having trouble understanding what counts as debt. As someone that makes all purchases on a credit card, does that count as debt if I pay it off every month? My initial gut reaction is that the number is low and that means people aren't buying homes or cars or higher education. Also not sure if this also means older boomers and genx are carrying more debt into later stages of life than they used to. They mention that in the article, but would be curious to see more demographic breakdowns.

It's tough, but buying a house is debt which factors into this debt analysis.

Isn't that just going to cause accidents? For all the non regulated cars on the highway, what happens if you need to merge into a lane where the flow of traffic is faster than the speed limit? It doesn't even have to be a highway, but lane changes in any city can have that problem I imagine.

It's weird. As a millennial in college I would always hear the grief from gen x hearing me complain and respond with "well get out an vote then." I guess it is now my turn to tell that to a younger generation, watch them get upset, and then eat my popcorn in 20 years while I watch gen lecture the next generation on the importance of voting.

But I do think this is alarming:

Before the 2020 election, 57% of Americans ages 18 to 29 said they were planning to vote. The number is now 49%, a figure many analysts say reflects disinterest in the likelihood of a Biden-Trump rematch.

I think the US would be a better place if we had compulsory voting laws similar to Australia that gets like 90 percent turnout. As a citizen of a democracy I think voting should be an obligation. And as a member of a democracy I wish the majority vote actually was a number that is a majority of Americans, not just Americans that voted, so we could have more faith in the outcomes actually reflecting the will of the people.

I don't know that one cheeky tweet from their pr/marketing team mens they gladly advertised password sharing as a feature. Would need to go back to the TOS for subs back then. Multiple screens is one thing, but multiple households is another.

I've mooched off my parent's cable account for 10+ years for streaming well after I moved to another state. As services cracked down on the practice I personally have never felt entitled to the TV services my household was not paying for. Some I chose to pay for myself, others I realize aren't for me and don't subscribe. Forl Netflix, I haven't yet broached the subject of joining accounts and paying for the additional logins option, but maybe I'll do that as a cost saving measure. But I can't think of a moral justification for why my household should be entitled to a TV service my parents pay for hundreds of miles away from where I live.

When CEOs talked about password sharing it was under the marketing POV that those folks would eventually convert into subscribers naturally. I guess they didn't expect it to become the norm. https://techcrunch.com/2016/01/11/netflix-ceo-says-account-sharing-is-ok/

Netflix was always a physical household concept business model. They started by mailing DVDs to a physical address. I think the challenge has been around the technology to enforce that on the digital end where the devices allow portability of service via digital distribution and resolution of IP or other identifiers to household is not always deterministic. Netflix does get to define what household means in their terms of service for their business agreement with the customer.

The gain was from a call though, not ownership of existing stock over long term.

I am aware of close knit families. But when one family member had cable, we'd just have movie/game/tv watch party with the extended family. Sure, if anyone wanted to have it in their own home independent of the social viewing experience, you could always buy it for your household. And the family members that had the cable package, probably would have kept it even if we didn't come over to visit and watch a game on ESPN or some other cable TV. PW sharing is fine within the household. It's when it 's out of the household where the crackdown really happens.

I'm aware of how media subs work and pw sharing works. But for me, I pay for the subscriptions I want access to. If pw sharing gets cut off, that is a free gift I used to give to other people as a bonus, but it doesn't impact how I chose which subs I pay for to access the content I watch. That's why I am curious why the primary sub holder of a service would cancel a sub if there's a PW share crackdown if they are the sole person paying for it and it's a subscription they enjoy utilizing.