I'm sure they're junkies. This was a quick way to get money to get high.

Mental "issues" is a pretty broad category, and not every "mental issue" is one that impairs ones judgement. People with mental illness are far more likely to be the victim of a crime than commit one, and it's not at all clear why, with that fact in evidence, people with mental "issues" somehow abrogate the same right…

Well, most of the rapes, wars, and corruption are done by a pretty small number of people. Your "average person" has some fairly substantial cognitive and moral biases, the most important one being "whatever everyone around me is saying is probably true." This cannot be overstated, and sadly, it's not even a matter of…

"Able to handle"? Let's say that a 14 year old played GTAV. What exactly do you think is going to happen to him? His head is going to explode? Shooting spree?

Exactly what are we trying to prevent, here, that can only be prevented by making sure kids don't find out what's in this video game?

M rated games are not to be sold to anyone under 18, there is a reason for that

Hollywood typically goes from hot girl to mother figure and then to grandmother figure without developing complex characters for women to play.

Cuz I'm pretty sure jut bc this article doesn't spell out every single evidence of ageism against women for you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yeah, I doubled the number of examples in the OP. I guess that wasn't enough.

Hrm, interesting. When was Helen Mirren's "hiatus", precisely? Because her IMDB page lists multiple appearances in film and TV roles every year since the start of her career.

Two examples are one more than the example used in the post, moron. But you tell me - how many examples would it take to convince you?

What evidence could possibly disprove this hypothesis, if the continuing careers of Helen Mirren and Betty White don't? Or is all that just waved away with the rhetorical trick of "that's not the examples we're talking about, so they don't count", which is just an open admission of cherry-picking?

My point, for perhaps the fourth time, is that if this is sound financial advice, then it should be able to be demonstrated under realistic conditions. If, instead, it requires assuming impossibly-high withholding rates (like 33%, which you would have to be in the upper six figures to pay), unrealistic rates of…

First - I never said that lifehacker readers were in the 33% bracket, only that it was the number implicitly used in the post.

I don't get the sense that too many people who read Lifehacker are in the 33% tax bracket, which would correspond (in 2012) with an annual income of over $183,000 a year. And frankly if you're making nearly four times the median household income all on your own, your company's 401k is really the least significant…

Your posts always include so much misinformation it is pathetic.

If they were given Stock yes that is lost, but the 401k is safe.

The free money is nothing to sneeze at, but that's pretty much the sole benefit of an employer 401k. And if they turn around and "invest" all of your money in their own junk stock, it's worthless. And they've tied your retirement to the fortunes of the company, which is exactly what you don't want.

If you think the difference between poverty living and affluent wealth 40 years from now comes down to whether you invested $20 today, you're math-illiterate. Whether you can retire and travel the world in 2053 will depend far more on your work income in the years 2047-2052, and the best "investment" you can make is…

My mind flashed back to the presentation from that informative meeting, where someone showed what would happen if someone contributed $30 a week to their 401(k) starting in 1965. By 1995, someone who had done that would have enough money saved that they would effectively be doubling their Social Security payments in…

Who responds positively to what is tantamount to personal insults?