Explore our other sites
  • kotaku
  • quartz
  • theroot
  • theinventory
    tjw
    tjw
    tjw

    Like any government program, it depends entirely on your definition of “fair.” We have all kinds of programs in this country that aren’t “fair.” Homeowners get a big tax break in my state, but renters’ tax breaks are limited by income. Why do 26-year olds get to stay on their parents’ health insurance but not 27-year

    I agree with your conclusion but disagree with your premise.

    My baby was born 12 weeks prematurely and has Chronic Lung Disease of Prematurity. She’ll be fine eventually and, from the outside, you wouldn’t know that anything is wrong with her but if she gets a respiratory infection there’s a decent chance that it will send her to the hospital. So, no, I don’t want my child

    Sorry, I meant every new force user - every person who wasn’t a Jedi before the series started, so: Luke, Leia, Rey, and Ben. 

    Within the context of the sequel trilogy it is made clear that the idea of the Force and the Jedi is basically a myth to most people. Hell, Han has to tell Rey and Finn that “it’s true, all of it.” While there were certainly Jedi in the past, with the exception of Broom Boy, literally every person who uses the Force

    B) Let’s not pretend that RJ didn’t piss all over everything JJ did first. “Here’s the big bad, Snoke.” “Squash, dead.” “Here’s this mystery about where this girl came from.” “Squash, dead, nobody.” “Here’s this epic moment of the new student meeting the master.” “Squash, dead, lightsaber off a cliff for a gag.”

    What we discover in this movie, and hopefully in retrospect, is that she’s essentially a princess who’s being raised as an orphan.

    I don’t think it’s that odd. As I understand it, this is basically the British version of “religious freedom” protection, they just expand it to include “philosophical belief” as well.

    He wouldn’t need to liquidate $2B worth of shares every single day. A smart investor (which I assume Bezos is) would spread out his sales over the course of an entire trading year (about 253 days) rather than flood the market all at once.

    You might see a small, temporary dip in the price but if the fundamentals of the company are the same and it’s known that the sale is for tax purposes, there’s no reason for the stock price to change long-term.

    I have their last game, Vindication, which is very good. I will say that they have a tremendous reputation on Kickstarter, they are very good at keeping the campaign interesting (apparently their big hook this time is that one of the planets will be designed by the backers). And they shipped Vindication like two

    I think the compliance concerns are largely overblown. Something like 90% of American wealth is held in financial instruments and real estate, which are all pretty easy to valuate and are mostly already valuated. Make insurance companies mandatory IRS reporters and you’ll capture a lot of the rest.

    Stocks don’t go down in price just because somebody decides to sell their shares. You’re conflating correlation and causation. Stock prices often go down in price when a lot of shares hit the market, but that’s because a lot of shares hitting the market is usually a sign of somebody (or lots of somebodys) losing faith

    I guess it depends on how you use your data, but we hit our data cap most months without using it as our home WiFi, too. And to upgrade to unlimited would cost us $50/mo more, which is... $5 less than we pay for home broadband. And that’s with the slowest cheapest unlimited plan.

    YouTube TV has been pretty good the few times I’ve used it. And it has enough of a different channel selection that it might be worth it if, for example, you really want AMC or MLB Network or something like that.

    I did the math on all of that below but, yes, the reason I omit the cost of internet is because I would have that regardless of whether or not I have cable television.

    When we dropped our cable TV with Cox in 2013, our total cable bill was about $190/mo - $130 for television, $60 for internet.

    Yes and no. $40/mo was never sustainable, whether it was Hulu, YouTube, Sling, or PS Vue. The content does cost more than that. But $55/mo is still less than half of what I was paying for cable when we cut the cord in 2013. At that time, we were paying $130/mo of which, at least $40-$50 was taxes, fees, and equipment

    It wouldn’t be that hard. Local governments already appraise property. And financial firms already have reporting requirements. Just expand those and you’ll capture the vast majority of property. Make insurance companies report too (to capture those boats and expensive paintings) and that should just about do it.

    I agree. I see Disney+ joining our regular rotation along with Prime, Starz, and HBO with Netflix/Hulu Live as our everyday subscriptions.