What happens to residential electricity pricing is very specific to region. In California, the cost of PG&E's electricity has skyrocketed due to wildfires. You just need to spark a couple wildfires during a mega-drought and high winds then suddenly WHAMO! -- $30 billion dollar settlement, bankruptcy proceedings, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Gas_and_Electric_Company#Wildfires), and a mandate to put 10,000 miles of above-ground power lines underground.

All of that is extremely expensive. They need to pay for it. They increase user rates to pay for it.

And before someone says, "The problem is that they're a private entity! They should be owned by the state!!," please do recognize that you don't want those power lines under public liability. You should never, ever want your government to adopt an ailing system... because the lawsuits will increase and the payouts will be larger because then the plaintiffs will be reaching into every single taxpayers' pockets.

Anytime there's an economic downturn, companies reduce their advertising budget. That includes reducing their own advertising staff and reducing their paid advertising expenses. The result is always cuts in media budgets who primarily bank on advertising revenue for operations.

Some podcasts are already adapting by asking regular listeners to join premium tiers (and the great ones get great buy-in) or moving their podcasts to subscription services like SiriusXM to kept a piece of the subscription revenue.

The difficulty of obtaining a American driver's licensure varies literally from city to city and the license is valid throughout the entire United States. Many of the least competent people obtain and retain their licensure throughout their lives despite vision issues, decreased decision-making abilities, infractions, and crimes.

By contrast, it is MUCH more difficult to get a license due to the higher standard of driving and it's much easier to LOSE one's license.

There are road differences between the two nations, but the PRIMARY difference is the standard to legally drive vehicles.

It sounds old and stodgy, but having lived through so many investor-fueled booms and busts, I tend to agree. Investing in a company (buying shares) should result in an apportionment of profits-- that's all. If we're ever going to have any semblance of a stable economy, we have to stop assuming that there will be a greater fool.

Non-Libertarian here. While the market is good for many things (multiple iterations bearing out a better product or business model), I assert that some things are just too important to leave to the market. For example, we don't want to let the market decide if thalidomide should be prescribed to expecting mothers because the market can be so very drastically wrong... or slow... or intentionally manipulated and exploitative.

When people are at risk of harm or exploitation, "leaving it to the market" is like sending lambs to slaughter. Thus, given the massive amount of public funds, retirements, and life savings invested, I don't think the appropriateness of accounting standards for publicly-traded companies should be left to the market to decide.

The LTSE has neat principles, but their requirements are insufficiently stringent to absolve them of their obligations to fully inform their financial investors. Consider their requirements to list:

1. Serves the interests of a broad group of stakeholders
2. Measures success over long time horizons that stretch from years to decades
3. Implementing compensation plans for executives and directors that reward long term performance
4. Giving directors a crucial role in the setting of strategy and the monitoring of progress
5. Engaging with long term shareholders

Every single one of those requirements is gameable. Consider:

1. Everyone likes to make money. We make money. Check!
2. We evaluate revenue over multiple years. Check!
3. Double-extra bonus for C-suite that's stuck around for 5+ years. Check!
4. Meetings happen. Check!
5. Shareholders calls. Check!

Wow... so innovative. (sarcasm) Their requirements are insufficient to assuage the financial concerns with business operations that instigated the quarterly report standard.

Yes, having accountants costs money. Being responsible stewards of corporate funds is hard. Good accountancy is one of the most important LONG-TERM financial success strategies. You don't want to fly by the seat of your pants, loose millions of dollars in random unaccounted-for accounts, or fraudulently use funds that are restricted as customer deposits as investment capitol, right? RIGHT? (See: FTX)

Ya... that's why quarterly reports are necessary.

This is a standard Bloomberg "check out how easy it is to get money once you already have money" article. Clickbait at its core.

At 26 years old, most people don't have the experience to call themselves "a former" anything.

Exceedingly few self-supporting 26 year olds have enough money in an account to call "savings".

That means that he had OVER $40,000 in cash savings to put into that portfolio at the age of 26. The median HOUSEHOLD has $8,000 in savings.

Let's take a look at another profile:

Oh... so he had a very high paying job for an extended period of time, now has insider information, and is now telling people they can make magic easy money by buying his stuff and doing something different?...

You're only a skeptic if you try to find the truth. You're simply obstinate if you just doubt things without using the tools in front of you to seek truth. Here's the hard data: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/r...

Go to any weather station and download the data going as far back as you can. I downloaded data from Oxford to run some simple analysis for January 1853 through August 2025. A simple linear regression showed an unquestionable increase in max temperature in that period with the accelerating increases since the 1980s. The biggest increases in average monthly max temp (C) throughout that time period were in March (2.3C), October (2.1C), November (2.3C), and December (2.0C). The lowest increase was June (0.9C).

The data's all there.

It's been normal and common behaviorally to go with 32GB on new PCs/builds, but given how long people keep their laptops and PCs, it hasn't been "the norm" throughout the entire population of home-owned PCs until recently.

Absolutely! The budget card is consistently the most used card for both Nvidia and AMD. It's no contest.

And that makes me wonder why the reviewers don't focus more on getting the most out of your budget card instead of (as they will frequently say), "Just save up and buy a better card."

Throughout the launch of the RTX 4060 and ever since it hit the shelves, all the louder reviewers have slammed this GPU as not meeting their own expectations of what the 4060 should be. They complained that:

1. No one cares about power efficiency
2. DLSS/FSR is bad because it makes "fake frames"
3. People NEED 12+ GB of VRAM to enjoy their video games
4. $300 is too much for what people got

The market disagreed and I hope they look back and realize:

1. The cost of electricity is skyrocketing for most Americans. While the biggest Youtube reviewers live in areas where it costs $0.15/kWh, the most populous states pay $0.25-$0.45/kWh. The 4060 was the coolest (low heat), quietest, and most affordable card for its capabilities. Those weren't the REVIEWER'S priorities though, so the preferences of the USERS were well in their blind spot.

2. Budget gamers will turn on every setting to improve their experience including DLSS and FSR. They don't have ego about it.

3. Most people are enjoying their games just fine with 8 GB of VRAM or less. They're happy enough right now hitting 70fps 1440p with med/high textures with DLSS running. I'm not saying they SHOULD be-- the market is showing that they are.

4. It's hard to argue this point because it's 100% opinion. Sure, Nvidia could have charged less and brought in less profit, but they're not obligated to do so. They're a for-profit corporation.

I'm getting sent to "https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/28/generative-ai-reshapes-us-job-market-stanford-study-shows-entry-level-young-workers.html" from the link in the summary.

Percentage proportions are a zero sum game because there is only 100% of a whole. Thus, in economics, the percentage share of global economic output is a measure of DOMINANCE, not health.

If the EU, China, and USA economies have fully expanded but Lesotho establishes a New Renaissance, with their global market share jumping from 1% to 5%, the proportion of global market control for EU, China, and USA would have decreased, but it wouldn't mean that they would be any less well off.

That's not unreasonable. With our current technology, medicine, and financial system, fighting cancer as hard as is necessary to have a shot at winning is both painful and ruinously expensive.

If you have a reason to fight, you have a chance to win. If you don't, you don't need to fight.