Ha!

No. And not just no, but hell no. Giving away equity without an ownership stake in return is being a sucker.

No. And not just no, but hell no. Giving away equity without an ownership stake in return is being a sucker.

No. And not just no, but hell no. Giving away equity without an ownership stake in return is being a sucker.

No. And not just no, but hell no. Giving away equity without an ownership stake in return is being a sucker.

No. And not just no, but hell no. Giving away equity without an ownership stake in return is being a sucker.

No. And not just no, but hell no. Giving away equity without an ownership stake in return is being a sucker.

No. And not just no, but hell no. Giving away equity without an ownership stake in return is being a sucker.

No. And not just no, but hell no. Giving away equity without an ownership stake in return is being a sucker.

No. And not just no, but hell no. Giving away equity without an ownership stake in return is being a sucker.

No. And not just no, but hell no. Giving away equity without an ownership stake in return is being a sucker.

Ehh...maybe 5% and we wouldn't have to give anything up, but beyond that you'll probably have to start making real choices. The idea that most government spending is bloat is a bit of a myth, particularly when it comes to capital budgets. This is why contractors have never put that much of a dent into things without…

The purpose of justice, once you strip away all the bullshit, is to maintain order in society by managing those who will only follow the rules of society when they are explicitly written and backed up with force. (As opposed the unwritten social decorum that is sufficient for most of us) It's not about the victims,…

No, she got revenge. I'm not saying it wasn't fair, it was an assault in exchange for an assault, but justice is more than getting even.

In theory, yes. Liberals and evangelicals should (based on the Bible) agree on caring for the poor, elderly, and the disabled, reducing poverty and and inequality, reducing violence, increasing rehabilitation programs instead of just locking people up, environmental care, sensible economic policy, charity, and…

People who buy celebrity magazines are sad, sad people who live boring, tedious lives. Obsessing with other people's lives is a BAD thing.

I watch more television than I probably should, then again, television is vastly preferable to e-stalking my exes. Then again, again, I don't watch trashy reality TV shows, which are the equivalent of stalking. I do watch reality cooking shows, but those have nothing to do with reality, and I root against the catty,…

"It's normal to obsessively cyberstalk your ex."

Look at it this way, they always show the woman's face, and she gives effort to at least fake emotion. The man? Just a single piece of anatomy. They might not show ANYTHING other than that. Maybe his hands end up on screen at some point. So if it's objectifying the woman, it's reducing the man to even less.

Who do you think makes them for Brilliant Earth?