- Peggy Hill
aliceblossom
joined 1 year ago
This is really cool! Does anyone have any resources for drills to learn how to type like this?
I've recently started putting together a home studio and made the mistake of asking online what I should consider before painting my monitors. Nearly half of the people who responded said, "Don't do it, it'll ruin the resale value." Like dude, I'm not here to be on a god damned gear treadmill. I'm here to make music. Gear is just a necessary evil to me and if I never have to buy monitors again I would be so happy. So, If I can get some extra joy out of them and make them mine, I'm gonna.
Homeless man stops begging, demands change.
Best line in the whole movie.
This is not correct. English is simply not phonetic and therefore it's impossible to spell any English word phonetically.
The Shavian Alphabet!
I wholly agree with your initial sentiment, although I envision it being structured differently. I think it makes sense for a person to have a name when they are growing, especially one given to you by your parents since they are (typically) a huge part of who you are at that point in your life.
But, no one stays who they are when they were 7, or 12, or 16. By the time they're not a minor I would argue that they're hardly the same person. Thus, I think it should be expected and tradition for people to change their name once they truly become individuals.
And I think it doesn't even have to be a legal thing. Parents can just be like, "think about and pick your new name" and once the person decides, they (and everyone else they inform) just starts calling them that name.
Maxwell Atoms, is that you?
It's important to note that for this specific situation/question, percentages (i.e. "half of all wealth") aren't actually useful. Depending on what the actual flat numbers are, it would still be possible for "half of all wealth" evenly distributed to the entire population of the planet to not be a lot of money per person.
That being said, I looked at your linked article which actually includes the flat numbers which means you can do the math and see what an even distribution of wealth amounts to for each and every person.
That article claims that in 2022, total global wealth was 418.3 trillion. Looking elsewhere for total global population in 2022, I'm finding ~8 billion. Those numbers give us a per person wealth value of ~52K. It's important to note that this isn't a yearly salary - it represents the sum total of all assets each person would have. Also important to note that the population number includes children - something like global adult population would likely be more useful but I couldn't easily find that number.
So 52K is our answer, but interpreting it is I think a very complex question all on it's own. I have no idea if this amounts to a "modest" living or even what "modest" really means (PCs? Air Conditioning? Year round access to global fruit supplies?). I thought for a long time that if we could evenly distribute wealth that everyone could live a "good" life - but the numbers might literally not shake out for that. I still hope they do. I want them to. But I've never seen a clear answer. Also, this isn't an argument against an even distribution of wealth. I think it's ethically correct to evenly distribute wealth basically no matter what. I just don't know if anyone knows what the lives of people would really look like in that scenario.
Great photos! I also love that statue.